Encyclopaedia Judaica Volume 12 (Kat-Lie)

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

JUDAICA

ENCYCLOPAEDIA

JUDAICA S E C O N D

E D I T I O N

VOLUME 12 Kat–Lie F red Skolnik, Editor in Chief M ichael Berenbaum, Executive Editor

IN ASSOCIATION WITH KETER PUBLISHING HOUSE LtD., JERUSALEM

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition Fred Skolnik, Editor in Chief Michael Berenbaum, Executive Editor Shlomo S. (Yosh) Gafni, Editorial Project Manager Rachel Gilon, Editorial Project Planning and Control Thomson Gale Gordon Macomber, President Frank Menchaca, Senior Vice President and Publisher Jay Flynn, Publisher Hélène Potter, Publishing Director Keter Publishing House Yiphtach Dekel, Chief Executive Officer Peter Tomkins, Executive Project Director Complete staff listings appear in Volume 1

©2007 Keter Publishing House Ltd. Thomson Gale is a part of The Thomson Corporation. Thomson, Star Logo and Macmillan Reference USA are trademarks and Gale is a registered trademark used herein under license. For more information, contact Macmillan Reference USA An imprint of Thomson Gale 27500 Drake Rd. Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535 Or you can visit our internet site at http://www.gale.com

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means – graphic, electronic, or

mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, web distribution, or information storage retrieval systems – without the written permission of the publisher. For permission to use material from this product, submit your request via Web at http://www.gale-edit.com/permissions, or you may download our Permissions Request form and submit your request by fax or mail to: Permissions Department Thomson Gale 27500 Drake Road Farmington Hills, MI 48331-3535 Permissions Hotline: (+1) 248-699-8006 or 800-877-4253 ext. 8006 Fax: (+1) 248-699-8074 or 800-762-4058

Since this page cannot legibly accommodate all copyright notices, the acknowledgments constitute an extension of the copyright notice. While every effort has been made to ensure the reliability of the information presented in this publication, Thomson Gale does not guarantee the accuracy of the data contained herein. Thomson Gale accepts no payment for listing; and inclusion in the publication of any organization, agency, institution, publication, service, or individual does not imply endorsement of the editors or publisher. Errors brought to the attention of the publisher and verified to the satisfaction of the publisher will be corrected in future editions.

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Encyclopaedia Judaica / Fred Skolnik, editor-in-chief ; Michael Berenbaum, executive editor. -- 2nd ed. v. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: v.1. Aa-Alp. ISBN 0-02-865928-7 (set hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865929-5 (vol. 1 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02865930-9 (vol. 2 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865931-7 (vol. 3 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865932-5 (vol. 4 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865933-3 (vol. 5 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865934-1 (vol. 6 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865935-X (vol. 7 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865936-8 (vol. 8 hardcover : alk. paper) -ISBN 0-02-865937-6 (vol. 9 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865938-4 (vol. 10 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02865939-2 (vol. 11 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865940-6 (vol. 12 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865941-4 (vol. 13 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865942-2 (vol. 14 hardcover : alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865943-0 (vol. 15: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865944-9 (vol. 16: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865945-7 (vol. 17: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865946-5 (vol. 18: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865947-3 (vol. 19: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865948-1 (vol. 20: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865949X (vol. 21: alk. paper) -- ISBN 0-02-865950-3 (vol. 22: alk. paper) 1. Jews -- Encyclopedias. I. Skolnik, Fred. II. Berenbaum, Michael, 1945DS102.8.E496 2007 909’.04924 -- dc22 2006020426

ISBN-13: 978-0-02-865928-2 978-0-02-865929-9 978-0-02-865930-5 978-0-02-865931-2 978-0-02-865932-9

(set) (vol. (vol. (vol. (vol.

1) 2) 3) 4)

978-0-02-865933-6 978-0-02-865934-3 978-0-02-865935-0 978-0-02-865936-7 978-0-02-865937-4

(vol. (vol. (vol. (vol. (vol.

5) 6) 7) 8) 9)

978-0-02-865938-1 978-0-02-865939-8 978-0-02-865940-4 978-0-02-865941-1 978-0-02-865942-8

(vol. (vol. (vol. (vol. (vol.

10) 11) 12) 13) 14)

978-0-02-865943-5 978-0-02-865944-2 978-0-02-865945-9 978-0-02-865946-6 978-0-02-865947-3

This title is also available as an e-book ISBN-10: 0-02-866097-8 ISBN-13: 978-0-02-866097-4 Contact your Thomson Gale representative for ordering information. Printed in the United States of America 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

(vol. (vol. (vol. (vol. (vol.

15) 16) 17) 18) 19)

978-0-02-865948-0 (vol. 20) 978-0-02-865949-7 (vol. 21) 978-0-02-865950-3 (vol. 22)

TABLE OF CONTENTS Entries Kat–Lie 5 • Abbreviations General Abbreviations 823 Abbreviations used in Rabbinical Literature 824 Bibliographical Abbreviations 830 • Transliteration Rules 843 Glossary 846

Initial letter “K” for Karolus (Charlemagne), from the opening of Book 25 of Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum Historiale, Metten, S. Germany, 1332. Munich Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. lat. 8201c, fol. 9v.

KATCHEN, JULIUS (1926–1969), pianist. Born in New Jersey, Katchen studied with David Saperton in New York. He made his first public appearance at the age of ten and his debut with the Philadelphia Orchestra in 1937. He played with the New York Philharmonic and at the age of 12 gave his first New York recital. Katchen gave up his promising career to study philosophy and English literature at Haverford College. Subsequently awarded a French government fellowship (1945), he settled in Paris, which became his home for the rest of his life. He became a major figure on the international music scene, noted for his powerful musical intelligence and a virtuoso technique, and toured as a soloist, recitalist, and chamber music artist. He was well known for his chamber music collaborations with violinist Joseph Suk and cellist Janos Starker. Katchen maintained a broad repertoire extending from the Classical era to contemporary music, but was most closely associated with Brahms. His death from cancer at the age of 42 robbed the world of a pianist who could convey the feeling that music is the richest and most inclusive reflection of human experience. ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Kat-Kz

Bibliography: Grove online; MGG2; Baker’s Biographical Dictionary (1997); N. Rorem. Critical Affairs – A Composer’s Journal (1970); C. Meher-Homji, “A Life on the Edge (Julius Katchen),” in: International Piano Quarterly, 3 (Autumn 1999), 38–42. [Naama Ramot (2nd ed.)]

°KATKOV, MIKHAIL NIKIFOROVICH (1818–1887), journalist, publicist, and editor of the influential newspaper Moskovskiya Vedomosti. In his youth, Katkov was associated with the revolutionary circles of Herzen and Bakunin. From the 1840s, he was attracted by the ideas of British liberalism, but after the Polish revolt (1863), he joined the camp of the extremist Conservatives. He nevertheless remained faithful to his liberal principles with respect to the Jewish problem. At the height of the anti-Jewish riots (1881–82), he condemned the “sudden mobilization against the Jews” which was due to “malicious devisers of evil” who deliberately sought to confuse the consciousness of the nation and encourage it to solve the Jewish problem, not by reasoning and enquiry, but with the assistance of “upraised fists.”

5

katowice

Bibliography: Nedelnaya Khronika Voskhoda, no. 30 (1887). [Yehuda Slutsky]

KATOWICE (Ger. Kattowitz), capital of Katowice province Silesia, part of Prussia until 1921. Information regarding Jewish communities in the vicinity of Katowice goes back to 1733. At the end of the 18t century certain Jews leased the iron foundries in the suburb in Bogucice (Ger. Bogutschuetz). The Jews were expelled from the nearby localities in 1781, but they were permitted to return in 1787. In 1840 there were 12 Jews in the city. Following the industrial development of the city, Jews played an increasing role in its economic life. The Jewish population numbered 102 in 1855, and in 1867, when Katowice was declared a city, 624; it numbered 2,216 in 1899, 2,979 in 1910, and 9,000 in 1932. The non-Jewish population grew at a much faster rate, rising from 14,000 in 1888 to 130,645 in 1930. An independent community was organized in 1866. From 1850 religious services were held in prayer-houses. The first synagogue was built in 1862 (expanded in 1880) and a new one was built in 1900. A cemetery was opened in 1868, and the first community rabbi was appointed in 1872. Communal activities expanded as the community grew. The Ḥ ovevei Zion conference was held in Katowice in 1884 (see *Kattowitz Conference). The Jewish communal organization developed considerably after World War I when Bruno Altmann headed the community from 1919. A new community building was inaugurated in 1937 which served as a center for cultural and organizational activities. The community paid much attention to Jewish education, maintaining a school, named after Berek *Joselewicz, and a Hebrew school, established in 1935. Antisemitic agitation in Katowice increased during the 1930s. In 1937 there were pogroms, and bombs were thrown into shops owned by Jews. As most of the Jews there were tradesmen, their economic position suffered severely as a result of the anti-Jewish *boycott. The Polish artisans’ organizations introduced “Aryan” articles into their regulations, and the Jewish artisans were expelled: the barbers’ association introduced an Aryan article in 1937, and the tailors’ association and others introduced similar articles in 1938. As a result of antisemitism many Jews left Katowice, and by 1939, 8,587 remained (6.3 of the total population). Rabbis Kalman Chameides and Mordechai Vogelmann served the community from 1928 until just before the Holocaust. In 1937 Rabbi Chameides was appointed adviser on Jewish affairs at the municipal law courts.

in the Soviet Union) settled in Katowice, and a Jewish Commitee for Upper Silesia was established there. A chapter of the Communist-led Jewish Cultural and Social Society was active until 1967, when the Polish authorities launched their antisemitic campaign. As a result of official hostility, almost all the Jews in Katowice left Poland. [Stefan Krakowski] Bibliography: J. Cohn, Geschichte der Synagogen-Gemeinde Kattowitz… (1900); A. Szefer, Miejsca stracen Ludnscicywilnej wojewodztwa katowickiego, 1939–1945 (1969); Yad Vashem Archives. Add. Bibliography: P. Maser et al., Juden in Oberschlesien I (1992), 107–21; W. Majowski (ed.), 100 Jahre Stadt Kattowitz 1865–1965.

Holocaust Period and Modern Period The Germans entered the city on September 3, 1939, and found a refugee-swelled Jewish population of 11,000–12,000 there. With many fleeing, 3,500 remained in October. Further flight and expulsions left 900 at the end of the year. These were expelled to other localities in May-June 1940, mostly to Chrzanow, and shared the fate of the local Jews After World War II about 1,500 Jews (almost all of whom were from other parts of Poland and had spent the war years

KATSH (Katz), ABRAHAM ISAAC (1908–1998), U.S. educator, author, and archivist. Katsh was born in Indura (Amdur), Poland, and immigrated to the United States in 1925. He received a B.S. from New York University in mathematics in 1931 and a J.D. from the law school in 1936. In 1933, he persuaded NYU to allow him to offer a course in modern Hebrew, the first such course at a U.S. university. There, he founded the Jewish Culture Foundation, the Department of Hebrew Language and Education, and the Institute of Hebrew Studies. A chair in his name was established at NYU’s Hebrew studies department in 1957. Katsh received a Ph.D. from *Dropsie College in 1942 and, in 1967, was elected president of Dropsie College (later University). Katsh was a wide-ranging scholar. As a student, he translated Einstein’s theory of relativity into Hebrew. In 1954 he published Judaism in Islam, an analysis of biblical and talmudic backgrounds of the Koran and its commentaries. During a visit to the Soviet Union and Hungary in 1956, Katsh discovered what he called a “bibliophile’s paradise,” many thousands of Hebrew manuscripts that were being stored in various libraries. He arranged for the microfilming of several thousand manuscripts that had been hidden from Western view since the Russian Revolution of 1917. One of the collections contained medieval manuscripts on all aspects of Judaica, including biblical commentaries, law, poetry, and liturgy. Another collection consisted of a quarter of a million pages and scraps of paper from the Cairo Genizah. Among them were 427 fragments of Talmud manuscripts – dating from the 7t through the 11t centuries – that corrected some inaccurate interpretations of talmudic material. During trips in the late 1950s and 1960s, during the height of the Cold War, he persuaded the Soviet authorities to microfilm additional manuscripts in libraries in Moscow and Leningrad, on the basis of which he published Catalogue of Hebrew Manuscripts Preserved… (On Microfilm) in the U.S.S.R. (2 vols., 1957–58); The Antonin Genizah in Leningrad (1963); Ginze Mishnah (1971), a study of 149 Genizah fragments dating from the 9t to the 12t centuries; Ginze Talmud Bavli, a companion volume of 178 fragments from the Antonin Collection (1975, 1979). He also published a collection of 50 Hebrew poems of the Spanish period. For his works on the Genizah, Katsh was awarded the Rabbi Kaniel Prize of the Municipality of Haifa in June 1979.

6

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

[Shimshon Leib Kirshenboim]

kattowitz conference

In 1963, Katsh learned of a diary written by a Hebrew school principal, Chaim Aron *Kaplan in the Warsaw ghetto that had been smuggled out of the ghetto and had been hidden for more than two decades. Katsh translated the diary, obtained missing volumes, and published it as Scroll of Agony: The Warsaw Diary of Chaim A. Kaplan (1965). Katsh published a number of essays on Hebrew and Jewish studies in U.S. universities. In 1957 he founded the National Association of Professors of Hebrew in American Universities. In addition to the books listed above, Katsh edited an anthology, Bar Mitzvah, Illustrated (1955), and Biblical Heritage of American Democracy was published in 1979. He retired from his posts at Dropsie and NYU in 1976. Bibliography: T. Naamani et al. (eds.), Dōrōn; Hebraic Studies (Essays in Honor of Abraham I. Katsh; 1965); Y. Ben-Josef (ed.), Sefer Avraham Yiẓ ḥ ak Katsh (1969); J. Komlosh, in: Bitzaron, 60 (1969), 158–64. [Ethan Katsch (2nd ed.)]

named Officier de l’Ordre des arts et lettres de France, and in 1990, Chevalier national du Québec. In 2004, Kattan was given Quebec’s highest literary honor, the Prix Athanase-David, for the corpus of his work. From 1994, he presided over the jury of Le Grand Prix de la Ville de Montréal. Bibliography: Voix et images (Montréal) 41:1 (Fall 1985), 7–54. [Ben-Zion Shek (2nd ed.)]

KATTINA, JACOB (second half of 19t century), rabbi and author. Kattina served as dayyan in Huszt, Carpathian Russia, in the bet din of Moses *Schick (1849–79). Kattina wrote two works which he published anonymously. The first, Raḥ amei ha-Av, was first published in Czernowitz in 1865 and has been frequently reprinted. In 1936 it was published in Marghita, Transylvania, with the notes of Solomon Zalman Ehrenreich (2nd ed. Jerusalem, 1950 and 1958), and in 1939, in Djerba, with the Judeo-Arabic translation of Ḥ ayyim Houri. The work has 58 chapters on moral improvement and in the introduction, the author says: “I called this booklet Raḥ amei ha-Av [“Mercy of the Father”] for it is true mercy for a man to chasten his child to lead him in the ways of God, this being the sole purpose of man.” The second work, Korban he-Ani, homilies on the Pentateuch in a kabbalistic and ḥ asidic vein, was published in Lemberg in 1872 and 1882.

KATTAN, NAÏM (1928– ), writer and critic. Naïm Kattan was born into a low-income family in *Baghdad, Iraq. He studied at a Jewish elementary school and then at a Muslim secondary school. His mother tongue was Arabic, and his first literary efforts were in that language. He also learned Hebrew, English, and French. In 1946, he left for Paris, where he enrolled in literature courses at the Sorbonne. In 1954, he moved to Montreal (“My third ‘birthplace’… a city that contains all the others, where all nationalities, religions, and languages exist, but which needs a common tongue – French – for people to communicate with each other.”) French then became his main vehicle of literary expression. Kattan published numerous books: essays, novels, plays, and short-story collections. Adieu, Babylone (1975), Les Fruits arrachés (1977), and La Fiancée promise (1983) are transposed autobiographical novels centered, respectively, in each of Kattan’s three “birthplaces.” In the first, he uses the name “Babylone” to designate the ancient state where Jews, originally captives, lived for more than 2,000 years, but from which virtually all eventually left. Kattan’s writing is concerned with explaining differences between Oriental and Occidental societies, inter-ethnic relations, migration, and integration. He believes that the various components of his own hetero-cultural identity all have validity and importance. Kattan quickly became part of the majority Francophone cultural milieu after moving to Montreal a half-century ago. He founded the Bulletin du Cercle juif, the first French-language Jewish publication in Quebec. He was a book reviewer for the Montreal daily, Le Devoir, for many decades, often discussing books on Arabic culture. In 1967, he was named first director of the literature section of the Canada Council for the Arts. After leaving that post in 1991, he became associate professor at the Université du Québec à Montréal. Kattan won many distinctions. He is a member of the Order of Canada, of the Académie des lettres du Québec and a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. He won the Prix Québec Paris for Le Réel et le théâtral (1971). In 1989, he was

KATTOWITZ CONFERENCE, a convention of *Ḥ ibbat Zion societies from various countries held in Kattowitz (i.e. *Katowice, then in Germany) in 1884. With the activation of the movement to settle Ereẓ Israel in the early 1880s and the establishment of Ḥ ibbat Zion societies in various countries, the need to create a unifying and coordinating center for the early Zionist activities was expressed. The only country in which a central committee functioned was Romania. An attempt to found a central committee for Russia, made at a small conference in Bialystok in 1883, produced no results; other attempts also failed. In the end L. *Pinsker, M.L. *Lilienblum, H. Ẓ . *Schapira, M. *Mandelstamm, and others took the initiative to convene a conference. Following the suggestion of David *Gordon, Kattowitz was selected as the site for the conference. Its date was fixed for Oct. 27, 1884, the 100t anniversary of the birth of Moses *Montefiore, at the suggestion of the Warsaw society. The conference was intended primarily for the Ḥ ibbat Zion societies in Russia, as the movement in Romania had greatly weakened and there were very few Ḥ ibbat Zion societies in other countries. As delegates from Russia encountered difficulties in arriving at the appointed time, the opening of the conference was postponed until November 6. Twenty-two delegates came to the conference from Russia and ten from other countries (one from France, one from Romania, two from England, and the rest from Germany). At the request of the Warsaw society, many other groups sub-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

7

Bibliography: J.J.(L.) Greenwald (Grunwald), Zikkaron laRishonim (1909), 19; J. Cohen, in: KS, 33 (1957/58), 136. [Naphtali Ben-Menahem]

katz, albert

mitted proposals for organization and action. Schapira, who could not attend, sent a telegram to point out the importance of establishing financial institutions, including a general Jewish fund, whose primary task would be to redeem land in Ereẓ Israel. In his newspaper, Ha-Ẓ efirah, N. *Sokolow published concrete proposals for activities and stressed the necessity to develop not only agriculture, but commerce, the trades, and industry in Ereẓ Israel. Pinsker was elected chairman of the conference; S. *Mohilewer, honorary chairman; A. *Zederbaum, the editor of Ha-Meliẓ , deputy chairman; S.P. *Rabbinowitz, Hebrew secretary. In his opening address, Pinsker stressed the necessity for the Jews to return to work on the land, but he did not mention the striving for national renascence and political independence, with a view to winning over the Jews of Western Europe, who opposed the concept of Jewish nationalism. At the proposal of Pinsker the conference established an institution named Agudat Montefiore to promote farming among the Jews and support Jewish settlement in Ereẓ Israel. A decision was reached to send immediately 10,000 francs to *Petaḥ Tikvah and 2,000 rubles for *Yesud ha-Ma’alah. It was also decided to send a reliable emissary to Ereẓ Israel to investigate the standing of the colonies there. Nineteen members were elected to the central committee, including Pinsker, Mohilewer, K.Z. *Wissotzky, J.L. *Kalischer (the son of Ẓ evi Hirsch *Kalischer), M. Mandelstamm, Ch. Wollrauch, and others. At the first meeting of the central committee, which took place at the time of the conference, it was decided that two committees, one in Odessa and the other in Warsaw, should temporarily manage the affairs of the organization. The central committee, to be headed by Pinsker, was to reside temporarily in Odessa, and a subcommittee was to be established in Warsaw, subject to the authority of Pinsker. Kalischer announced his presentation of land acquired by his father near Rachel’s Tomb to the central committee. Incomplete versions of the proceedings were published in German and in Hebrew. S.P. Rabbinowitz, who was responsible for the Hebrew text, permitted himself to add from memory or to alter the text out of his desire to bestow a nationalistic flavor on the proceedings. The press that was opposed to the movement found discrepancies between the two sessions and Pinsker made Rabbinowitz publish an apology in Ha-Meliẓ (no. 13, 1885). The Kattowitz Conference laid the foundations for the organization of the Ḥ ibbat Zion societies, especially in Russia. The few Ḥ ibbat Zion societies outside Russia, especially in Serbia, London, Germany, Paris, and New York, considered the leadership chosen in Kattowitz the center of the movement and maintained steady contact with it. Bibliography: Road to Freedom, Writings and Addresses by Leo Pinsker (1944); N. Sokolow, Hibbath Zion (Eng., 1935), index; A. Druyanow, Ketavim le-Toledot Ḥ ibbat Ẓ iyyon ve-Yishuv Ereẓ Yisrael, 1 (1919), 269–318; L. Taubes, Asefat Kattowitz (1920); J.L. Apel, BeTokh Reshit ha-Teḥ iyyah (1936), 171–95; I. Klausner, Be-Hitorer Am (1962), index; M. Yoeli (ed.), J.L. Pinsker Mevasser ha-Teḥ iyyah haLe’ummit (1960), 107–12. [Israel Klausner]

8

KATZ, ALBERT (Heb. pseudonym ‫( ;)א״ך איש הרוח‬1858–1923), writer, journalist, and Zionist. Katz, who was born in Lodz, served as teacher and preacher at Fuerstenwalde, near Berlin (1883–86). Katz and W. *Bambus founded the periodical Serubabel (1886–88), which advocated colonization in Ereẓ Israel. In 1890 Katz joined the editorial staff of the *Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums and eventually succeeded G. Karpeles and L. Geiger as chief editor. He was co-founder and secretary of the Verband der Vereine fuer Juedische Geschichte und Literatur and edited its Jahrbuch (JJGL) with Karpeles. Katz’s published books include: Der Jude und das Land seiner Vaeter (also published in Hebrew; 1883); Der Wahre Talmudjude (against *Rohling, 1893, 19284); Die Juden im Kaukasus (1894); Die Juden in China (1900); and Christen und Juden als Foerderer der hebraeischen Sprache (1907). He also wrote some short stories and translated I.B. *Levinsohn’s Efes Damim (against the blood *libel) into German as Die Blutluege (1892). [Nathan Michael Gelber]

KATZ, ALEPH (pseudonym of Morris Abraham Katz; 1898– 1969), Yiddish poet. Born in Mlyniv (Mlinov, Volhynia), Katz attended a Russian school before immigrating to the U.S. in 1913. He worked at various jobs while attending City College (New York). His first poems were in Hebrew, but in 1917 he published his first Yiddish poem in Der Groyser Kundes. Encouraged by Jacob *Glatstein, he published his Yiddish lyrics in organs of the *In-Zikh movement and in the journal, Zangen, which he founded and edited in 1920, as well as in dozens of other journals. His first two volumes, A Mayse fun Yam (“A Tale of the Sea,” 1925) and Akertsayt (“Plowing Time,” 1929), were influenced by the American Imagists and the Yiddish Inzikhists. Following his first pamphlet, Dos Telerl fun Himl (“Heavenly Saucer,” 1934), he found his own original tone in the lyrics of Amol Iz Geven a Mayse (“Once There Was a Story,” 1944), written under the impact of the Holocaust, and in his play Gut Morgn Alef (“Good Morning, Aleph,” 1950), which had as its dramatis personae the scattered but indestructible letters of the Hebrew alphabet. Katz reaffirmed his links with the Jewish people by writing for the children of Yiddish schools. Under the influence of *Naḥ man of Bratslav’s narrative approach, Katz often hints at a reality beyond observed phenomena, at a mystic realm which can be best expressed in allegorical symbols. His works also include Di Emese Khasene (“The True Wedding,” 1967), Der Morgnshtern (“The Morning Star,” 1975), and children’s books such as Kholem Aleykhem (“Dreams Be with You,” 1958). Katz was also a Yiddish editor of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency for more than forty years. Bibliography: LNYL, 4 (1961), 344–7; B. Rivkin, Yidishe Dikhter in Amerike (1959), 295–302; J. Glatstein, In Tokh Genumen (1960), 335–9; S. Bickel, Shrayber fun Mayn Dor (1965), 95–9. [Sol Liptzin / Jerold C. Frakes (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, ALEX (1927– ), U.S. painter, sculptor, and printmaker. Katz primarily painted in the traditional mode of portraiture, often eschewing perspective and the psychological interpreENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

katz, sir bernard

tation of his models, while flattening bright colors. Born in Brooklyn to newly immigrated parents from Eastern Europe, Katz joined the Navy a month before the end of World War II. After a year in the Pacific he returned home and began his art studies, initially at the Cooper Union Art School (1946–49) training to be a commercial artist. This early exposure to the style of billboards, magazine advertisements, and comic strips would affect his later artistic production. Katz decided to focus on the fine arts in his last year, at which time he studied with, among others, the Jewish painter Morris Kantor. He also took summer art classes at the Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture in Maine (1949, 1950), honing his skills and his interest in working from nature. During 1950–51 Katz painted many landscapes in a loose, sketchy style encouraged by Jackson Pollock’s allover canvases. In the late 1950s Katz began painting his wife, Ada, as he started to develop his mature style and to discover his overriding interest in portraiture. The following year he also made his first cut-outs – freestanding, double-sided figures painted on aluminum or wood. By the early 1960s Katz’s canonical style of large-scale, cropped portraits painted with sharp, crisp contours and employing strident colors began to evolve (e.g., The Red Smile, 1963, Whitney Museum of American Art). Painted with thinned-out oil paint, Katz explored form and color much as the Fauvist Henri Matisse did in the earlier part of the century. Unlike social realist painters of a generation earlier – including Raphael, Moses, and Isaac *Soyer – who emphasized their humanist intentions, Katz repeatedly asserts that these works and others are more about style than content. While continuing to paint portraits, Katz also made a series of enlarged flower paintings that press to the front of the picture plane, filling up the canvas (1966–67). Beginning in 1960, Katz designed sets and costumes for choreographer Paul Taylor’s dance performances in addition to sets for other productions. His set for Kenneth Koch’s off-Broadway play George Washington Crossing the Delaware incorporated around 20 almost life-size wood cutouts, including Washington in his rowboat, army officers, and props such as a cherry tree all rendered in Katz’s straightforward style. Starting in 1965, Katz began making prints, some of which were executed as illustrations for published books of poetry by leading writers such as John Ashbery. Over the years Katz experimented with including background details omitted in earlier canvas portraits, painting group portraits often of family and friends in social situations, and landscapes. Bibliography: N.P. Maravell, Alex Katz: The Complete Prints (1983); R. Marshall, Alex Katz (1986); S. Hunter, Alex Katz (1992); I. Sandler, Alex Katz: A Retrospective (1998).

talmudic research, the results of which he later published in the journal Ha-Shilo’aḥ . He also conducted much research in the history of Polish and Russian Jewry, in light of halakhic and responsa literature; part of this work was published under the title Le-Korot ha-Yehudim be-Rusyah u-Polin ve-Lita baMe’ot ha-Shesh-Esreh ve-ha-Sheva-Esreh (“History of the Jews in Russia, Poland, and Lithuania in the 16t and 17t centuries,” 1898). Katz’s contributions to the Hebrew press inspired him to publish his own periodicals, and in 1903 in St. Petersburg he founded a newspaper and a quarterly, both under the name Ha-Zeman; a monthly, bearing the same name, was also published by him in Vilna (1905–06). At the end of 1916 Katz began to publish a Hebrew weekly, Ha-Am, in Moscow, which became a daily at the outbreak of the 1917 Revolution. The newspaper was critical of the Communist Revolution and was closed down in 1918. In 1920 he left Russia and after a short stay in Kovno, moved to Berlin, residing there until he settled in Ereẓ Israel in 1931. He was a regular contributor to Haaretz and Ha-Boker, and for a few years, also resumed publication of an independent daily, Ha-Zeman. Toward the end of his life Katz published chapters of his memoirs, afterward collected in Zikhronot (1963). In 1953 he founded He-Avar, a journal devoted to Russian Jewish history. The results of his historical researches appear in his books Perushim, Ẓ edukim, Kanna’im, Noẓ erim (“Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots, Christians,” 1948) and Rabbanut, Ḥ asidut, Haskalah (“Rabbinism, Ḥ asidism, Enlightenment,” 1956–59). Bibliography: Rejzen, Leksikon, 2 (1927), 17–20; LNYL, 4 (1961), 348–51; He-Avar, 6 (1958), 3–24. [Getzel Kressel and Yehuda Slutsky]

KATZ (Benshalom), BENZION (1907–1968), Hebrew translator, literary critic, and educator. He was the brother of Juliusz *Katz-Suchy. Born in Sanok, Galicia, he studied at the University of Cracow, taught Hebrew language there (1929–39), and lectured at the Warsaw Institute of Jewish Studies (1937–39). In 1940 he immigrated to Palestine, and from 1941 to 1963 was director of the Jewish Agency’s Youth and He-Ḥ alutz Department. He also lectured on classical literature at the Tel Aviv University, where he was appointed rector in 1964. Katz’s books include Mishkalav shel Ḥ .N. Bialik (“Metrics in Bialik’s Poetry,” 1942); Ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit Bein Shetei Milḥ amot Olam (1943; Hebrew Literature between the Two World Wars, 1953); Sheki’ot Yerushalayim (“Jerusalem Sunsets,” poems, 1965); and Orḥ ot Yeẓ irah (“Creative Paths,” literary essays, 1966). He translated into Hebrew selections from the Persian epic Shahnama by Firdausi and the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyam, as well as several classical Greek works. [Getzel Kressel]

[Samantha Baskind (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, BENZION (1875–1958), Hebrew journalist and writer. Born in Daugi (Vilna district), Katz began to contribute to Ha-Ẓ efirah at an early age. At the invitation of Baron David *Guenzburg, he went to St. Petersburg in order to engage in

KATZ, SIR BERNARD (1911–2003), British physiologist and Nobel Prize laureate. Katz was born in Leipzig, Germany. He studied medicine at the University of Leipzig, 1929–34; he received the Siegfried Garten Prize for physiological research in 1933 and obtained his M.D. in 1934. He left Germany in 1935

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

9

katz, daniel

and finished his education in London, where he settled. He received a Ph.D. from London University in 1938 and in 1942, he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Science. In 1939 Katz joined J.C. Eccles’ laboratory at Sydney Hospital, Australia, as a Carnegie Research Fellow. He collaborated with J.C. Eccles and S.W. Kuffler in neuromuscular research. In 1942, after naturalization in 1941, he joined the Royal Australian Air Force, and served as a radar officer in the Southwest Pacific until the end of the war. In 1946, he returned from Australia to University College, London. In 1952 he became professor and head of the biophysics department at University College, a position he held until his death. He received many awards and was made a fellow of the Royal Society of which, in 1965, he was elected vice president, and a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1969. He was knighted in 1969. He was a member of the Agricultural Research Council from 1967 and the Biological Secretary of the Royal Society from 1968. In 1970 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine. Katz demonstrated the relationship between neural transmission and acetylcholine release in quantitative terms, and clarified the action of calcium in the propagation of the nerve impulse. His main research was in the field of the nature of both the nerve impulse and nerve-muscle connections. He wrote Electric Excitation of Nerve (1939) and Nerve, Muscle, and Synapse (1966). Bibliography: Lex pris Nobel/Nobel Lectures. [George H. Fried / Ruth Rossing (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, DANIEL (1903–1998), U.S. psychologist. Born in Trenton, New Jersey, Katz was the world’s first recipient of a doctorate in a formal program of study in social psychology, which he received from Syracuse University in 1928. Conducting some of the earliest empirical research on stereotyping, his studies at Princeton with Kenneth Braly on the nature of ethnic stereotypes eventually became models for subsequent generations of research on prejudice. He was appointed instructor at Princeton in 1924 and in 1940 became associate professor. In 1943 he became chair of Brooklyn College’s newly formed department of psychology. Katz joined the Office of War Information in 1943 as a research director. After the war, he joined the staff of the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center, which subsequently became a branch of the Institute for Social Research. Katz was later appointed to the university’s psychology department as well. Katz served as president of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues and earned a number of career awards for his contributions to social psychology. A leader in social psychology and public-opinion research, Katz served on the editorial boards of many journals in his field. He co-authored Social Psychology (with R.L. Schanck, 1938), Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences (with L. Festinger, 1953), The Social Psychology of Organizations (with R. Kahn, 1966), Bureaucratic Encounters (with the University of Michigan, 1975), and The Study of Organizations (with R. Kahn and J. Adams, 1980). [Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

10

KATZ, DAVID (1884–1953), German psychologist. Born in Kassel, Katz studied at various universities including Goettingen, where he worked under Georg Elias Mueller and taught until the outbreak of World War I, when he served in the army. In 1919 Katz was appointed to the newly established chair of psychology and pedagogy at the University of Rostock which, under his direction, became one of the leading centers for psychological research in Germany. In 1933 he was dismissed by the Nazis, and for four years he was supported as a refugee scientist in England, first in Manchester and then in London. In 1937 he was appointed to the chair of psychology and pedagogy in Stockholm, where he developed a productive psychological laboratory. He was one of the pioneers in experimental phenomenology. As Katz presented it, it was an attempt to bring under experimental control all the phenomena of experience. He is best known for the distinction he made between surface colors and film colors, and his work on touch paralleled his work on color. His interests ranged widely and he is also remembered for his contributions to animal psychology, child psychology, the psychology of thinking, and psychological instrumentation. Among his many publications, the most important are Der Aufbau der Farbwelt (1930; The World of Colour, 1935), originally published in 1911 in: Zeitschrift fuer Psychologie und Physiologie, as “Die Erscheinungsweisen der Farben”; Der Aufbau des Tastwelt (1925); together with Rosa Katz, Gespraeche mit Kindern (1928; Conversations with Children, 1936); Animals and Men (1937, 19532); and Gestaltpsychologie (1944; Gestalt Psychology, 1950). Bibliography: R.B. MacLeod, in: IESS, 8 (1968), 352–4, includes bibliography; S. Kaznelson (ed.), Juden im deutschen Kulturbereich (19623), 286, 289; History of Psychology in Autobiography, 4 (1952), 189–211. Add. Bibliography: NDB, vol. 11 (1977), 332f. [Robert B. MacLeod]

KATZ, DAVID S. (1953– ), Israeli historian of British Jewry. Educated at Columbia University and at Oxford, Katz became professor of English history at the University of Tel Aviv. He is considered one of the foremost authorities on the AngloJewish community in the early modern period. His work The Jews in the History of England, 1485–1850 (1994) is regarded as one of the most sophisticated treatments of a period previously examined by relatively few academic historians. He also wrote Philo-Semitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England, 1603–1655 (1982) and is the author or editor of many other works. [William D. Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, DOVID (Heershadovid Menkes; 1956– ), Yiddish linguist, author, and educator. Born in New York, son of Menke *Katz, he developed, while studying at Columbia University (1974–78), the idea of direct links between the Aramaic and Yiddish periods of Jewish linguistic history; at the University of London he specialized in historical phonology and dialectology (Ph.D. 1982). He founded and directed Yiddish Studies ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

katz, hanns ludwig

at Oxford University (1978–96), at the Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies (1978–94), and was fellow at St. Antony’s College (1986–97), founding the Winter Studies in Yiddish series (4 vols. 1987–91), and the Oksforder Yídish series (3 vols. 1990–95), initiating and editing the literary monthly Yiddish Pen (1994–96). He founded the Oxford Summer Programme in Yiddish Language and Literature (1982), which he later moved to Vilnius, Lithuania (from 1998). Following a visiting professorship at Yale University (1998–99), he took up a new chair in Yiddish at Vilnius University. After directing the new Center for Stateless Cultures (1999–2001), he helped establish the university’s Vilnius Yiddish Institute (2001). He initiated Yiddish teachers’ courses at Oxford (1996) and in Vilnius (2005), publishing Grammar of the Yiddish Language (1987) and Tíkney Takones: Fragn fun Yidisher Stilistik (“Amended Amendments: Issues in Yiddish Stylistics,” 1993). He became known for his ardently descriptivist stance, challenging the “purist” school that developed in postwar New York; he also championed the more traditionalist version of modern Yiddish orthography in Klal-takones fun Yidishn Oysleyg (“Code of Yiddish Spelling,” 1992). As Heershadovid Menkes he published three volumes of fiction: Eldra Don (1992), Der Flakher Shpits (“The Flat Peak,” 1993) and Misnagdishe Mayses fun Vilner Gubernye (“Tales of the Misnagdim of Vilna Province,” 1996). After experimenting with modern settings, he settled on pre-WWI Lithuanian Jewish settings, which earned critical acclaim. He became a regular contributor to Yidishe Kultur, Forverts and the Algemeyner Zhurnal. From 1990, he carried out expeditions to record the last native Yiddish in Lithuania, Latvia, northeastern Poland, and especially Belarus, collecting materials for a future atlas of Northeastern Yiddish. His Lithuanian Jewish Culture (2004) traces the cultural history of Lithuanian Jewry from its origins to the present. He co-edited the collected translations of his father’s works (Menke: The Complete Yiddish Works in English Translation, 2005). A prolific scholar and writer, Katz published numerous studies on the historical sociology of Yiddish, the structure of Ashkenazi Hebrew and Aramaic, medieval rabbinic history, the history of Yiddish studies, and methodology in historical linguistics, with emphasis throughout on the history of ideas. For a more general readership, he published Words on Fire: The Unfinished Story of Yiddish (2004). Katz was awarded the 1979 Marshak Award in Yiddish Literature (Montreal), the 1995 Chaim Grade Award in Yiddish Culture (New York), the 1996 Zhitlovsky Prize in Yiddish Literature (New York), the 1997 Manger Prize in Yiddish Literature (Tel Aviv) and a Guggenheim Fellowship (2001–2).

KATZ, ELIHU (1926– ), professor of sociology and communications. Born in New York, Katz received his doctorate from Colombia University in 1956. In 1963 he immigrated to Israel and joined the Guttman Institute for Applied Social Research of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. During the 1960s he took time out from his academic career and headed the task force charged with the introduction of television broadcasting in Israel. He founded the Communications Institute at the Hebrew University in 1966, heading it until 1980. In the mid1970s he and Daniel Dayan initiated a series of live broadcasts of recreated historic events inspired by the peace process with Egypt. He was a professor of sociology and communications at the Hebrew University until 1991, when he retired. He also served as professor at the Annenberg School of Communication at the University of Southern California. With his colleagues in Jerusalem and California he published 10 books and over 90 articles, among them: Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications (with Lazarsfeld, 1955); Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study (with Coleman and Menzel, 1966); The Secularization of Leisure: Culture and Communication in Israel (with Gurevitch, 1976); The Export of Meaning: Cross-Cultural Readings of “Dallas” (with Liebes, 1990); Media Events: The Live Broadcasting of History (with Dayan, 1992); and Canonic Texts in Media Research: Are There Any? Should There Be? How About These? (with Peters, Liebes, and Orloff, eds., 2003). In 1989 he was awarded the Israel Prize for social sciences. He also received the UNESCO-CANADA McLuhan Prize and Burda Prize (in media research). Website: www.asc.upenn.edu/ascfaculty/facultyBioDetails. asp?txtUserID=ekatz#research. [Fern Lee Seckbach / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

[Dov-Ber Kerler (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, HANNS LUDWIG (1892–1940), German painter and graphic artist. Katz was born in Karlsruhe. After leaving school he made a short sojourn in Paris at the atelier of Henri Matisse. From 1913 to 1918 Katz studied painting, history of art, and architecture in Karlsruhe, Heidelberg, and Munich. He married the pianist Franziska Ehrenreich and they moved to Frankfurt-on-the-Main in 1920, after he had published a series of expressionist lithographs entitled Danse macabre which alluded to the revolution in 1919. In Frankfurt, Katz became known as a painter of portraits, cityscapes, and still lifes, which revealed the influence of Max Beckmann and the Neue Sachlichkeit. But despite the success and the support of the art critic Max Osborn, he had to become a partner in a whitewashing company in 1923 in order to make a living. One of his portraits in the style of the Neue Sachlichkeit shows the artist at work. After getting his master craftman’s certificate, he worked in the business until 1936. After the Nazi takeover in 1933, Katz took an active part in the Frankfurt section of the Juedischer Kulturbund, and in 1935, one year after his wife died, he planned to establish a semiautonomous Jewish settlement in Yugoslavia. After his endeavors failed he immigrated to South Africa in 1936. Before leaving Frankfurt, Katz married

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

11

Bibliography: B.Z. Goldberg, Algemeyner Zhurnal (Sept. 1, 1972), 18; P. Slobodjans’kyj, Language, 64:4 (1988), 761–6; 67:1 (1991), 114; R.F. Shepard, New York Times (Apr. 6, 1991), 17; A. Karpinovich, Letste Nayes (Aug. 21, 1992), 8–14; ibid. (Aug. 6, 1993), 5; Lebns-fragn, 525–6 (1996), 16; S. Vorzoger, Letste Nayes (Nov. 13, 1992), 8; ibid. (May 7, 1993), 8–14; Tsukunft, 100/1 (1996), 19–22; L. Prager, Mendele Review, 08.010/149 (Oct. 29, 2004); J. Sherman, Times Literary Supplement (May 27, 2005), 22–3. Website: www.dovidkatz.net (bibl.).

katz, israel

Ruth Wolf, who followed him into exile. Thus he was able to escape before one of his best expressionist portraits, of Gustav Landauer (1919–20, private collection, Kapstadt), was publicly denounced in Degenerate Art in 1938. Despite becoming deeply involved in painting the landscapes of his new homeland, Katz was unable to make headway in the South African art scene and died in Johannesburg. Bibliography: Heuberger, H. Krohn (ed.), Hanns Ludwig Katz (1992). [Philipp Zschommler (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, ISRAEL (1917–2003), U.S. aeronautical engineer. Katz was born in New York and graduated from the Boston Trade School. He earned a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Northeastern University, Boston (1941); a naval architecture and marine engineering degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a degree sponsored by the U.S. Navy (1942); and a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Cornell University (1944). He was a staff member of Cornell (1944–57) where he became associate professor and was head of the aircraft power unit. He worked in the advanced electronic center of the General Electric Company in Ithaca, N.Y. (1957–63) but returned to Northeastern University (1967–88), where he became professor of mechanical engineering and held senior academic appointments, including dean of the Center for Continuing Education, before retiring as emeritus professor. Katz worked on submarine and aircraft propulsion and submarine launched missile systems. He was a consultant for the U.S. Department of Defense and the Pratt and Whitney Aircraft Company. He was an outstanding teacher of basic and advanced teaching courses in engineering, and his books on aircraft propulsion and mechanical engineering in industry became standard texts. He received the New England Award in engineering (1993). He was an active supporter of Temple Beth El and Temple Ohabei Shalom in Boston. [Michael Denman (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, ISRAEL (1927– ), Israeli social scientist and politician. Katz was born in Vienna and came to Ereẓ Israel under the *Youth Aliyah scheme in 1937. He studied physics and chemistry at The Hebrew University and, after completing his military service, studied social work at Columbia University, New York. Returning to Israel in 1953, he was appointed director of a home for emotionally disturbed children and from 1955 to 1959 was educational supervisor of Youth Aliyah. He returned to the United States to continue his studies and received his doctorate in social work administration from the Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. On his return to Israel he was appointed director of the Paul Baerwald School of Social Work of The Hebrew University, also serving as director-general of the National Insurance Institute and director of the Brookdale Gerontological Institute. In 1982 he received a Ph.D. from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem and subsequently became a senior lecturer in the department of sociology and anthropology.

12

He joined the Democratic Movement for Change in 1977 and, when his party joined the coalition in October 1977, was appointed minister of labor and social betterment, serving until August 1981. KATZ, ISRAEL (Joseph; 1930– ), U.S. ethnomusicologist. Katz graduated from UCLA (B.A., 1956) and later spent two years (1959–61) in Jerusalem, where he studied privately with Edith *Gerson-Kiwi and undertook field research among the Sephardic communities of Israel. He returned to UCLA and took his doctorate in 1967 with a dissertation on JudeoSpanish ballads, comparing the stylistic features of traditional ballads from Jerusalem with those preserved among the Sephardim of Turkey, Greece, and Morocco. Among other places, he taught at McGill University (Montreal, 1968–74); Columbia University (1974–75); York College (CUNY), chairing the Department of Fine and Performing Arts; and Hebrew Union College as a visiting lecturer. He conducted research in Spain on a Guggenheim Fellowship (1975–76) and again as a Fulbright scholar (1985–86). In 1982, he became associated with the University of California, Santa Cruz (1982–89) and Davis (1989–2004), collaborating as an associate researcher with the renowned hispanists Samuel G. Armistead and Joseph H. Silverman (d. 1989) on the series Folk Literature of the Sephardic Jews. Katz served as editor of Ethnomusicology (1970–72); for the Yearbook of the International Folk Music Council, he was editor (1977–70), coeditor (with Albert Weisser, 1976–82), editor (1983–88), and coeditor with Arbie Orenstein (2001– ). He was a founding member of the American Society for Jewish Music (1974) and served as chairman of the board (until 1988). Katz concentrated his studies on the Sephardic and Oriental Jewish communities of the Mediterranean region, and on the traditional folk music of Spain, with special studies on the 13t-century Cantigas de Santa Maria. He collected traditional ballads in Morocco (summer 1961), Spain (summer 1978) and Portugal (summer 1988), where he followed the footsteps of Kurt *Schindler. Transcription and analytical techniques as well as comparative tune scholarship are basic to his researches. He wrote the books Judeo-Spanish Traditional Ballads from Jerusalem: An Ethnomusicological Study (1972–1975) and, with S.G. Armistead and J.H. Silverman, the six-volume Judeo-Spanish Ballads from Oral Tradition (1986–2005). He was also editor of many important studies and wrote numerous articles. [Amnon Shiloah (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, JACOB (1904–1998), Israeli historian. Born in Magyargencs, Hungary, Katz studied at various yeshivot and at the university of Frankfurt. From 1936 to 1950 he taught at religious schools and the Mizrachi Teachers’ Seminary in Jerusalem. From 1950 he taught at the Hebrew University, becoming professor of Jewish social and educational history in 1962. In 1969 he was appointed rector of the Hebrew University. Katz’s published works include Toledot Yisrael ve-he-Ammim (“Israel and the Nations,” several editions, 1941–62); MasoENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

katz, menke

ret u-Mashber (1958; Tradition and Crisis, 1961); Exclusiveness and Tolerance (1961); Freemasons and Jews (1970); Emancipation and Assimilation: Studies in Modern Jewish History (1972); Out of the Ghetto: The Social Background of Jewish Emancipation, 1770–1870 (1973); Toward Modernity: The European Jewish Models (1987). His work is significant for the understanding of the intricate relationships between Jews and gentiles and offers insights into Jewish sociology in medieval and modern times. For his studies he utilized rabbinical sources which had been usually unexplored for historical-sociological research. In 1980 he was awarded the Israel Prize for studies in Jewish history. Bibliography: J.M. Harris, The Pride of Jacob: Essays on Jacob Katz and His Work (2002).

KATZ, JOSEPH BEN ELIJAH (17t century), writer of ethical works. Little is known about his life, except that he was av bet din in Zaslavl in the beginning of the 17t century. Joseph wrote Rekhev Eliyahu (Cracow, 1638). The book, which follows the order of Mishnah Avot, uses the Mishnah as a starting point for discussing ethical subjects such as reward and punishment, ethical behavior in commerce, and teshuvah (see *Repentance). Joseph draws upon various subjects from the Kabbalah and he mentions some kabbalistic and ethical works, such as Sefer Ḥ asidim, Sefer ha-Zohar, Tola’at Ya’akov (by R. Meir ibn Gabbai), Tomer Devorah (R. Moses ben Jacob Cordovero), Reshit Ḥ okhmah (Elijah ben Moses De-Vidas), Beit Ha-Shem (R. Solomon Alkabez), and also cites R. Isaac Luria Ashkenazi (Ha-Ari).

KATZ (Wannfried), MENAHEM, also known as Menahem Prossnitz (c. 1800–1891), Hungarian rabbi. The name Wannfried indicates his family’s origin in Hesse-Nassau. Born in Prostejov (Prossnitz), Moravia, Katz was one of the outstanding disciples of R. Moses *Sofer. He was head of the yeshivah in his native town. Elected rabbi of Rajka (Ragendorf), Hungary, he was later appointed rabbi of *Deutschkreutz (Ẓ elem), one of the “Seven Communities” of *Burgenland, where he served for over 50 years. Here too, he headed an important yeshivah. Katz is best known for his activity on behalf of the Orthodox faction at the Congress of Hungarian Jewry (1868). After the schism in Hungarian Jewry, he was a member of the delegation of rabbis which obtained independent rights for the Orthodox organization from Emperor *Francis Joseph I. In 1870 he also convened a meeting of Orthodox rabbis which served as the basis for the separate organization. Bibliography: S. Sofer, in: Iggerot Soferim (1929), 9; J.J.(L.) Greenwald (Grunwald), Li-Felagot Yisrael be-Hungaryah (1929), 78. [Baruch Yaron]

Bibliography: E.E. Grusd, B’nai B’rith, Story of a Covenant (1966), index.

KATZ, MENKE (1906–1991), Yiddish and English poet. Known as Menke (Méyn-keh) in Yiddish literature, he was born in Svintsyan (now Švenčionys, Lithuania) and spent World War I in Micháleshik (Michalishki, Belarus) before immigrating to New York in 1920. He made his poetic debut with “Bowery” in the avant-garde Sparták, coedited by A. *Pomerantz and Russian poet V. Mayakovsky, and joined the leftist writers’ group that coalesced into Proletpen, from which he was expelled (1932) for publishing his first book, Dray Shvester (“Three Sisters”), a mystical and erotic poetic drama in four acts. His two-volume World War I epic, Brenendik Shtetl (“Burning Village,” 1938) brought a new storm for its longing, lyrical descriptions of shtetl life and its failure to indulge socialist realism. Katz replied with “Der Braver Pakhdn” (“The Brave Coward”), a manifesto for a Yiddish poetry free of the shackles of politics, including the line “I will not lead by poem into battle.” His book, S’hot dos Vort mayn Bobe Moyne (“Grandmother Mona Takes the Floor,” 1939), is written in the voice of his shtetl grandmother who mercilessly takes on the New York Yiddish literary-political establishment. In 1944, he coedited the literary journal Mir. In midlife he turned to universal themes, particularly in the book Inmitn Tog (“Midday,” 1954). Due to political squabbling in the Yiddish literary establishment, he turned to writing English as well, and made his debut with “A Patched Window” (Commentary, Feb. 1956), and soon began to publish in the Atlantic, The New York Times, Midwest Quarterly, Poet Lore, and other English outlets. His first English book, Land of Manna (1965), synthesized motifs from the Lithuanian shtetl and the American metropolis. In English he became known for his opposition to rhyme and his experimentation with novel forms, including the twin narrative chant royal; the unrhymed unrefrained chant royal; and most famously, the “Menke Sonnet,” whose increasing or decreasing number of syllables per line forms graphic triangles.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

13

[Esty Eisenmann (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, LABEL A. (1918–1975), U.S. attorney, realtor, and community leader. Katz, who was born in New Orleans, Louisiana, practiced law but concentrated on the home-construction industry and investment, and from 1951 was president of Label A. Katz Investment Co., Inc. He was president of the Communal Hebrew School of New Orleans (1943–48), and served in various district and national offices of the B’nai B’rith Hillel Foundation. He served as president of B’nai B’rith International for two terms (1959–65). At the age of 41, he had the distinction of being the youngest international president in the history of the organization. Katz was particularly concerned with Jewish education and with international affairs, notably the position of Soviet Jewry; in 1964 he helped organize the American Jewish Conference on Soviet Jewry, which encompassed 24 organizations. He also served as chairman of the Presidents’ Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations (1960–61). In Louisiana he served on the New Orleans Mayor’s Citizens’ Committee on Housing Improvement (1953), as vice president of the Urban League of Greater New Orleans, and as chairman of the board of Sophie Newcomb College of Tulane University. In his honor, B’nai B’rith International established the Label Katz Young Leadership Award, which honors members under the age of 40 who display distinguished leadership skills.

Katz, Mickey

Major works in English include Rockrose (1970), Burning Village (1972; not a translation of the 1938 text), A Chair for Elijah (1985), and Nearby Eden (1990). In all, he published 18 books of verse, nine in each language. His “World of Old Abe” won the 1974 Stephen Vincent Benet Award and he was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for Burning Village. He edited the poetry magazine Bitterroot (1962–91), which became known for seeking out unknown talent and inspiring poetic experimentation. His collection of folktales from Micháleshik, Forever and Ever and a Wednesday, appeared in 1980. Translations of his work have appeared in book form in French (1972), Greek (1968), Hebrew (1973), Italian (1972), Japanese (1967), Kannada (1968) and Lithuanian (2006). A compendium of translations in 21 languages of “On the Death of a Day Old Child” appeared in 1973. A near-complete collection of his Yiddish works in English translation by Benjamin and Barbara *Harshav appeared in 2005. He worked as a Yiddish teacher for much of his life. In 1985 he completed a collection of Yiddish folksongs, including many unknown variants from his native Lithuanian villages (unpublished, as is his 1951–2 diary to his brother Yeiske). He is the father of Dovid Katz and Troim Katz Handler. Bibliography: B.Z. Goldberg, Tog (April 29, 1932); A. Reisen, Feder Zamlbukh (1936); I. Bashevis [Singer], Tsukunft (March 1940); M. Shtarkman, Hemshekh Antologye (1945), 259–68; H. Leivik, Tog (Nov. 14, 1953); Y. Varshavski [I. Bashevis [Singer]], Forverts (Dec. 9, 1956); M. Ravitsh, Mayn Leksikon, 3 (1958), 360–1; J. Glatstein, Tsukunft (Feb. 1963); LNYL, 8 (1981), 110–11; A. Evory and L. Metzger, Contemporary Authors, 11 (1984), 285–8; 110–11; B. Kagan, Leksikon fun Yidish Shraybers (1986), 551–2; M. Zadrozny (ed), Contemporary Authors, 9 (1989), 49–71 (autobiography); D. Katz, Di Goldene Keyt, 132 (1991), 98–123; B. Harshav, Jerusalem Review, 1 (1997), 137–9; H. Smith and D. Katz, Menke: The Complete Yiddish Poems of Menke Katz (2005), v–cxxxv. Website: www.dovidkatz.net > Menke Katz.

ican public heard from Mickey Katz, who went on to publish his autobiography, Papa Play for Me, in 1977. Katz’s legacy received another boost with the 1993 release of Don Byron plays the Music of Mickey Katz by the noted African-American jazz artist. In addition to being the father of Joel *Grey, Katz is the grandfather of Dirty Dancing dynamo Jennifer Grey. [Casey Schwartz (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, MINDRU (1925–1978), Romanian-born Israeli pianist. Born in Bucharest and recognized as a child prodigy by George Enescu, Katz was recommended to Floria Musicescu, with whom he studied at the Royal Academy of Music in Bucharest. Katz made his debut with the Bucharest Philharmonic Orchestra (1947), won prizes at international competitions, and the state prize, first class, of the Romanian Republic (1954). Between 1947 and 1959 he went on concert tours in Eastern Europe, and made his debuts in Paris (1957) and in London (1958). In 1959 he gave his first Festival Hall recital, recorded Khachaturian’s concerto and Prokofiev’s First Piano Concerto, and settled in Israel. He first played with the Israel Philharmonic under Martinon and continued to make extensive tours in Western Europe, Africa, the Far East, and the Americas. He performed with leading orchestras and illustrious conductors such as Sir John Barbirolli, Antal Dorati, and Joseph Krips. Katz was appointed lecturer at the Rubin Academy of Music at Tel Aviv University and a professor in 1972. He had great impact on the level of piano culture in Israel. His piano playing managed to be both technically brilliant and full of poetry. His repertoire ranged from Bach to Prokofiev but he was most acclaimed in Beethoven, Chopin, and Brahms. He died during a recital.

[Dovid Katz (2nd ed.)]

Add. Bibliography: New Grove Dictionary (1980). [Naama Ramot (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, MICKEY (1909–1985), U.S. musician, comic. Known for his unusual blend of klezmer music and Borscht Belt humor, Katz began playing the clarinet as a young child in his hometown of Cleveland, Ohio. He was performing with local bands by the time he was in high school. After he began to incorporate comic routines into his musical act, he gained the attention of Spike Jones, who invited Katz to become a member of his City Slickers band in 1946. Katz can be heard on a number of classic Spike Jones recordings including “Hawaiian War Chant,” in which he provides the “glug-glug-glug” sound effect. It wasn’t long before Katz pitched his own solo act to Spike Jones’ label RCA and got a record deal of his own, performing popular American tunes with a Yiddish interpretation, adding Yiddish lyrics and instrumentation to the wellknown songs as well as a comically exaggerated Jewish accent. After his RCA singles met with success, Katz went on the road, doing a tour he called the “Borscht Capades.” Katz’s son, later to be known in his own right as actor Joel *Grey, was included in the cast of Katz’s road show. Katz eventually left RCA for Capital Records, where he remained until his retirement in the 1960s. However, this was not to be the last that the Amer-

KATZ, MOSES (1885–1960), Yiddish journalist. Born near Minsk, he received a traditional Jewish and secular education. He was arrested in 1903 for participating in an illegal Zionist education group. After the Kishinev pogrom he joined the Socialist-Zionists and took part in self-defense activities. After a twoyear stay in Palestine (1908–10), he returned to Russia and then went to the U.S. in 1913. Katz started his career as a writer in Russian in 1904, but from 1905 contributed to Yiddish journals. In the U.S. he joined Chaim *Zhitlowsky’s journal Dos Naye Lebn and served as a correspondent for foreign publications in Yiddish and Russian. He returned to Russia in 1917 after the February Revolution. Between 1917 and 1920 Katz held various editorial posts in Russia, helped to found the Ukrainian KulturLige, and managed the Jewish Division of the State Publishing House in Kiev. After his return to America in 1922, he worked on the Yiddish Communist daily Frayhayt (later Morgn Frayhayt) and also contributed to many leftist journals. He wrote numerous articles on travel as well as popular discussions of history and of Marxism, often using pseudonyms. He translated Ivan Franko, Heine, and Kipling into Yiddish and edited a sixvolume edition of Lenin in Yiddish (Moscow, 1933). Among his

14

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

katz, ruth

works are Nikolay Lenin (1920), Di Ershte Yidishe Oytonomye (“The First Jewish Autonomy,” 1934), and A Dor Vos Hot Farloyrn di Moyre (“A Generation that Lost its Fear,” 1956). Bibliography: LNYL, 4 (1961), 358–62. Add. Bibliography: P. Novick (ed.), Moyshe Kats Bukh (1963), 9–24; B. Kohen, Leksikon fun Yidish-Shraybers (1986), 311. [Henry J. Tobias]

KATZ, NAPHTALI BEN ISAAC (Ha-Kohen; 1645–1719), rabbi and kabbalist. Katz was born in Stepan (Volhynia), where his father was rabbi. In his youth he was taken captive by the Tatars but managed to escape. He succeeded his father as av bet din of Stepan and then served as rabbi of Ostrow (1680–89), Posen (1690–1704), and Frankfurt on the Main (1704–11). In the latter year a fire broke out in his house, destroying the whole Jewish quarter of Frankfurt. After he had been maliciously charged with preventing the extinguishing of the fire because he wanted to test his amulets – in the use of which he was expert – he was imprisoned and compelled to resign his post. He went to Prague, staying in the house of David *Oppenheim, where he met Nehemiah *Ḥ ayon and even gave approbation to his book Oz le-Elohim (also called Meheimnuta de-Kalla; Berlin, 1713). From 1713 to 1715 he lived in Breslau, where together with Ẓ evi Hirsch *Ashkenazi he excommunicated Ḥ ayon after realizing his true character. In 1715, after King Augustus of Poland had rejected his application to be restored to his post as rabbi of Posen, he returned to Ostrow where his son Bezalel was rabbi. While journeying to Ereẓ Israel he was taken ill in Constantinople and died there. Among his works are Pi Yesharim (Frankfurt, 1702), kabbalistic comments to the word bereshit (“in the beginning”); Birkat ha-Shem (2 pts., ibid., 1704–06), including Semikhat Ḥ akhamim, consisting of hadranim (see *Hadran) and Kedushah u-Verakhah, novellae to the tractate Berakhot; and Sha’ar Naftali, poems and piyyutim (Bruenn, 1757). Several works are still in manuscript. Katz was one of the important halakhic authorities of his generation and one of the greatest kabbalists of Poland. His image persisted in the memory of the people, and many legends and wondrous tales about him circulated for many generations. He conducted his rabbinate high-handedly and as a result met much opposition from the leaders of the communities, which was apparently the cause of his frequent wanderings. Despite this he had a sensitive soul which found expression in his poems, piyyutim, and prayers which have been published in various places. His well-known ethical will (1729?) contains profound thoughts and moral instruction and some see in it one of the first sparks of practical *Ḥ asidism.

KATZ, REUVEN (1880–1963), talmudist. After studying in various yeshivot, Katz went to Vilna to study under Ḥ ayyim Ozer *Grodzinski. He became known as the Illui (“prodigy”) of Olshany. He married the daughter of Abraham *Maskileison. After holding appointments in a number of towns, including Minsk in 1905, Indura in 1909, and Stawiski in 1923, he joined a delegation visiting the United States and remained there as rabbi of Bayonne, New Jersey. In 1932 he was appointed chief rabbi of Petaḥ Tikvah where he also headed the Lomza Yeshivah, founded by the heads of the Lithuanian yeshivah of the same name. Katz headed a variety of communal organizations, including the aid committee for Grodno Jewry and the Aguddat ha-Rabbanim of Poland. He was vice president of Aguddat ha-Rabbanim of America and in Israel he was president of Aguddat Rabbanei Yehudah ve-ha-Sharon and an associate of the Council of the Chief Rabbinate and of the Va’ad ha-Yeshivot. Among his published works are the responsa Degel Re’uven (3 pts., 1923–49); Duda’ei Re’uven (1928; 2nd ed. 2 pts., 1954) on the Pentateuch; and Sha’ar Re’uven (1952), a collection of essays on topical and practical problems. Of his sons, Aaron succeeded him as rosh yeshivah in Petaḥ Tikvah, Simeon served on the bet din there, Michael and Leon taught at Yeshiva *University, while a fifth son, Abraham *Katsh, became president of Dropsie University. Bibliography: Harkavy, in: R. Katz, Sha’ar Re’uven (1952), 5–11 (introd.); Bergstein, in: Shanah be-Shanah (1965), 447–52; Raphael, in: Sinai, 56 (1965), 183f.; A. Shurin, Keshet Gibborim (1964), 141–6; Tidhar, 3 (1949), 1490f. [Itzhak Alfassi]

[Yehoshua Horowitz]

KATZ, RUTH (1927– ) Israeli musicologist. Born in Germany, Katz emigrated to Palestine in 1934. She studied piano with E. Rudiakoff and music theory with P. *Ben-Haim in Tel Aviv, and earned her Ph.D. in 1963 at Columbia University. She joined the newly established department of musicology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1965 where she became professor of musicology in 1984 and emeritus since 1995. Ruth Katz was head of the School of Graduate Studies (1983–86) at the Hebrew University and fellow at the Institute of Advanced Studies in Berlin (1986–87). Her fields of interest encompass a wide scope of research: aesthetics, philosophy and sociology of music, historical musicology, study of non-western traditions, musicological and ethnomusicological methods, and cognitive science of music. She distinguished herself with her broad interdisciplinary approach and methodological creativity. In 1957 Katz developed, together with D. Cohen, the melograph – an instrument for the continuous graphic representation of melody (or any monophonic vocal expression with definite pitch). The melograph is used for analyzing melodic elements that cannot be expressed exactly in traditional Western notation, e.g., those based on other intonation systems, microtonal intervals, contours of glissandi, attack and decay of notes, vibrato, or the relation of pitch to loudness. This method has been applied to studies on the music of the Samaritans:

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

15

Bibliography: Perles, in: mgwj, 14 (1865), 92f.; M. Horovitz, Frankfurter Rabbinen, (1969), 98–114; Horodezky, in: Ha-Goren, 1 (1898), 100–2; Kaufmann, in: REJ, 36 (1898), 256–86; 37 (1898), 274–83; idem, in: JJGL, 2 (1899), 123–47; M.M. Biber, Mazkeret li-Gedolei Ostraha (1907), 63–69; Lewin, in: HḤ Y, 6 (1922), 261–63; M.E. RapoportHartstein, Shalshelet Zahav (1931); Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1931), 453; Narkis, in: KS, 15 (1938–39), 370–2; Halpern, Pinkas, 206ff., 601; Peli, in: Sinai, 39 (1956), 242–60; A. Yaari, Meḥ kerei Sefer (1958), 55ff.

katz, shmuel

“Explorations in the Music of the Samaritans: An Illustration of the Utility of Graphic Notation” (with D. Cohen), Ethnomusicology, 4 (1960), and also to the music of Syrian (Aleppo) Jews, Palestinian Arabs (secular and sacred), and Israeli folksongs. Unlike similar apparati developed independently at the same time (in Los Angeles and Norway), the Katz-Cohen melograph set the basic methodology and interpretative approach still used today. Other ethnomusicological interests concern latent vs. manifest theory (with D. Cohen) and historical continuity vs. change in oral traditions. Her research on Western tradition includes the history and theory of notation; the origins of opera as collective problem-solving, analogous to science; eighteenth-century music and aesthetic theory; the relationship of language to music (her work on this subject was an example of the “cognitive turn” in epistemology and was an early contribution to cognitive science); music in philosophical writings (with C. Dahlhaus); and the relationship among stylistic change, aesthetic judgment, and historical process, examined through the case of the institutionalization and diffusion of opera (early 17t c.). Among her major books are Divining the Powers of Music: Aesthetic Theory and the Origins of Opera (1986); Contemplating Music: Source Readings in the Aesthetics of Music (4 vols.; with C. Dahlhaus, 1988–1992); Tuning the Mind: Connecting Aesthetics to Cognitive Science (with R. Ha-Cohen, 2003); The Lachmann Problem: An Unsung Chapter in Comparative Musicology (2003); and Palestinian Arab Music: A Maqam Tradition in Practice (with D. Cohen, 2005). [Elisheva Rigbi (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, SHMUEL (1914– ), Israeli publicist. Katz was born in South Africa and came to Eretz Israel in 1936 as secretary to the Honorary South African Consul, Michael Haskel. He was active in the *Irgun Ẓ eva’i Leummi, then under the leadership of David *Raziel. At the request of Ze’ev Jabotinsky he came to London in 1940, where he launched and edited a weekly Revisionist magazine. On his return in 1946 he resumed his activity in the Irgun and was a member of its High Command until it dissolved. He then took over the responsibility for the branch of the Irgun which remained in Jerusalem during the final phase of fighting in the War of Independence. Katz was elected to the First Knesset, but left public life in 1951 and set up a publishing house. After the Six-Day War he became active in the Land of Israel Movement, carrying on propaganda on its behalf in the United States. After the victory of the Likud in March 1977, Menaḥ em Begin appointed him adviser on information abroad, but he resigned in January 1978 as he found himself in disagreement with the policy of the prime minister and joined the Ḥ erut group which opposed Begin’s peace negotiations. Later on, he retired from Ḥ erut politics. Katz published five books, Days of Fire, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine, No Courage, No Splendor, Zabo, and The Wild East. In addition, he translated works of Jabotinsky, and Menaḥ em Begin’s Revolt, into English.

16

KATZ, SHOLOM (1919–1982), ḥ azzan. Born in Oradea, Romania, Katz studied voice in Budapest and Vienna and was ḥ azzan in Kishinev, Bessarabia, until he was deported in 1941. At the Bralow, Ukraine, concentration camp, he was taken out to be shot but requested permission to sing the prayer for the dead. The officer in charge was so impressed by his voice that he spared him and allowed him to escape. In 1947 he emigrated to the U.S. and became ḥ azzan of the Beth Sholom Congregation in Washington, D.C. A powerful tenor with an extensive range and exceptional voice control, Katz developed an individualistic, unhurried and dramatic style. KATZ, SOLOMON (1909–1990), U.S. historian. Born in Buffalo, New York, Katz was hired in 1936 as an instructor by the history department of the University of Washington, where he remained for 53 years. In 1950 he was appointed professor of history. Katz’s main scholarly interest was the period of the decline of the Roman Empire and the emergence of the medieval world. His doctoral dissertation, “The Jews in the Visigothic and Frankish Kingdoms of Spain and Gaul” (1937), combined Jewish sources with Roman and Germanic sources to illustrate the status and organization of the Jews. Katz developed such an interest in the history of the late Roman Empire, or Byzantine history, that he began to offer courses in the subject in 1940, making the UW one of the few institutions to offer such classes at the time. He served in the U.S. Army Air Force (1942–46). During his tenure at the university, Katz also served as chair of the history department, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, provost, and vice president for academic affairs. His book The Decline of Rome and the Rise of Medieval Europe (1955) is a brief popular survey. He also published in Jewish and general scholarly journals. Katz was a member of the Commission on Academic Affairs of the American Council on Education (1967); president of the Pacific Coast Branch of the American Historical Association (1967–68); and a member of the Commission on Students and Faculty of the Association of American Colleges (1969). An avid supporter of the arts and humanities in the Northwest, he served as a member of numerous arts, civic, and educational boards as well, including the Seattle Repertory Theater, the Seattle Art Museum, the Seattle Symphony, and Lakeside School. In 1978 he received the Seattle Mayor’s Public Service Award in the Arts. That year, the UW established the Solomon Katz Distinguished Lectureship Series in the Humanities and, later on, an endowed professorship was created in his honor. In addition, the Solomon Katz Distinguished Lectures in the Humanities Series was established by private donors to recognize distinguished scholars in the humanities. In 1983 Katz was presented with the University of Washington’s Outstanding Public Service Award. [Irwin L. Merker / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

KATZ, STEVEN T. (1944– ), U.S. scholar and philosopher. Katz was born in Jersey City, New Jersey. He earned his B.A. degree from Rutgers University (1966), his M.A. degree from ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

katzav, moshe

New York University (1967), and his Ph.D. from Cambridge University (1972). He served on the faculties of Cambridge University (1971–72); Dartmouth College (1972–84); and Cornell University (1984–96). In 1995 he was named as director of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum but when a controversy developed, he resigned without serving. He served as director of the Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies and professor of religion, comparative mysticism, and Judaica (Holocaust) at Boston University (from 1996). Katz published articles and books on Shoah history and theology, including Post-Holocaust Dialogues: Critical Studies in Modern Jewish Thought (1983) and Historicism, the Holocaust, and Zionism: Critical Studies in Modern Jewish Thought and History (1992). His stellar contribution on the singularity of the Shoah evolved in 1979 when Katz proposed his agenda on why the Shoah is unmatched in history. He expanded on the topic in The Holocaust in Historical Context. Volume 1: The Holocaust and Mass Death Before the Modern Age (1994) in which he discusses other horrific events deemed parallel to the Shoah. With dedicated persistence, he tackles a plethora of literature and scholarship and maintains that the issue at hand is not essentially a problem of economics, history, politics, religion, sociology, or theology but one of intentionality, that is Nazism’s Weltanschaung, the total genocidal intent against the Jewish people for being and becoming. A similar point is made in his essay “Children in Auschwitz and the Gulag: Alternative Realities” (in R.L. Millen, ed., New Perspectives on the Holocaust: A Guide for Teachers and Scholars (1996)), which documents that only in the brutal environment of Auschwitz all children were marked for extermination by the fiat of Nazi racial ideology. His edited volume, The Impact of the Holocaust on Jewish Theology (2005), brings together an array of international scholars who wrestle with profound postShoah religious and theological problems, including, how our belief in a providential all-good Creator has changed in the wake of the Holocaust. Katz contributed and edited several acclaimed works on mysticism: Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis (1978), Mysticism and Religious Traditions (1983), Mysticism and Language (1992), Mysticism and Sacred Scriptures (2000), and Comparative Mysticism: An Anthology of Original Sources (2005), which argue against others that the mediated experience is not peripheral but highly philosophical and historical to religious traditions. His scholarly works in the field of Judaica include Jewish Philosophers: A History (1975), Jewish Ideas and Concepts (1977), Antisemitism in Times of Crises (1991 with Sandor L. Gillman), Jacob Agus, American Rabbi (1997), and The Essential Agus (1997). For B’nai B’rith Books, he edited two volumes of original essays, Frontiers of Modern Jewish Thought (1992) and Interpreters of Judaism in the Late Twentieth Century (1993). Katz served as general editor of several series: Jewish Philosophy, Mysticism, and the History of Ideas: Classics of Continental Thought (1979–80, 65 volumes); Judaica Festschrift zu Hermann Cohens Siebzigstem Geburtstage (1979, a reprint series); Judaica Series, and Modern Jewish Masters (periodic

monograph series, New York University Press). Finally, Katz founded and continued to serve as the editor of the awardwinning journal, Modern Judaism (from 1981).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

17

[Zev Garber (2nd ed.)]

KATZAV, MOSHE (1945– ), eighth president of the State of Israel, member of the Ninth to Fifteenth Knessets. Katzav was born in Yazd in Iran. At the age of one Katzav’s family moved to Teheran, and five years later the family immigrated to Israel; after a short sojourn in the Sha’ar ha-Aliyah immigration center in Haifa, the family was sent to the Kastina ma’barah near Be‘er Toviyyah – today Kiryat Malakhi. In the floods of 1951 Katzav was moved to Kefar Bilu, without his family’s knowledge. The family’s housing conditions gradually improved from a tent to a hut, and finally to a small apartment. As a boy Katzav visited the residence of President Yitzhak *Ben-Zvi, together with other children from ma’barot who excelled in reading. Katzav studied at the youth village of Ben-Shemen and later went to high school at Be’er Toviyyah. During his military service in the Communications Corps, he helped support his family in construction jobs. After completing his military service he worked as a clerk in Bank Hapoalim, and as an assistant in the Vulcani Institute for Agricultural Research. At the same time he started to work as a reporter for Yedioth Aḥ aronoth and served as president of B’nai B’rith Youth. He was the first student from Kiryat Malakhi at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where he started to study in 1968, after saving money to finance his studies. At the university he was head of the *Gaḥ al students cell. He received his B.A. in economics and history in 1971. While still a student he began teaching history and mathematics at high school, and in 1969, at the age of 24, was elected head of the local council of Kiryat Malakhi, at the head of a coalition that included Gaḥ al and the *National Religious Party. However, after several months repeat elections were held, and he lost his majority in the Council. He was reelected head of the local council on behalf of the Likud and served in this position in the 1976–81 term – in the first two years on the basis of a rotation agreement with the Alignment. Katzav served as a reservist in both the Six-Day War and the Yom Kippur War. In 1977 he was elected to the Ninth Knesset on behalf of the Likud, and served in the Knesset until he was elected president of the State in 2003. In the course of the Ninth Knesset, before the rise of the Ayatollah Homeini to power, he was sent twice on missions on behalf of Prime Minister Menaḥ em *Begin to Iran, to encourage the Jews to immigrate to Israel. In the Tenth Knesset he served as deputy minister of construction and housing, responsible on behalf of the government for *Project Renewal. In the National Unity Government of 1984–88 he served as minister of labor and welfare, and in 1988–92 as minister of transportation. In the opposition in 1992–96 he served as chairman of the Likud parliamentary

katzburg, david Ẓ evi

group, and in the government formed by Binyamin *Netanyahu he served as deputy prime minister and minister of tourism in 1996–99. Among the various public posts he filled over the years was chairman of the roof organization of the immigrants from Iran, chairman of the Committee to Determine Salaries in Institutions for Higher Education, and member of the Board of Trustees of Ben-Gurion University. After Ezer *Weizman resigned as president in 2000, Katzav contended for the position opposite Shimon *Peres, and against all odds was elected as Israel’s eighth president. He was the second Sephardi to be elected to the post (Itzhak *Navon had been the first), and the first president to have been born in a Muslim state. As president, Katzav did his best to serve as a moderating and unifying figure, and unlike his predecessor avoided provocative statements. He has paid numerous state visits abroad and received several honorary doctorates. Bibliography: M, Michaelson, Moshe Katzav – Mima’aberet Kastina le-Kiryat ha-Memshalah (1992). [Susan Hattis Rolef (2nd ed.)]

KATZBURG, DAVID Ẓ EVI (1856–1937), talmudic scholar, author, and editor. Katzburg was born in Vác near Budapest to a rabbinic family originating in Moravia. He studied under the most distinguished rabbis of Hungary, including Hezekiah Feivel Plaut of Surány and Simḥ ah Bunim Sofer of Pressburg. After completing his studies he engaged in business for a short time and also served as rabbi in several communities. In 1892 he returned to Vác, and that same year he began the publication of Tel Talpiot, the first rabbinical periodical in Hungary. It was devoted chiefly to halakhah, both theoretical and practical, and among other things it clarified halakhic problems that had arisen because of contemporary conditions, such as the use of electricity on the Sabbath, machine baking of matzah, civil marriages, and problems of religion during World War I. These discussions had considerable repercussions in the rabbinical world. Tel Talpiot also included articles on homiletics, aggadah, and exegesis, as well as on communal problems. Of considerable historical importance are the discussions on Zionism among the Orthodox that arose as a result of the emergence of political Zionism in 1896 and with the first world congress of the Mizrachi in 1904. Katzburg took up a positive attitude to settlement in Ereẓ Israel. The contributors to Tel Talpiot were mostly from Hungary but also included scholars from Russia, Germany, Holland, and the United States. It appeared at first as a biweekly and after World War I as a monthly. An index to the first 45 volumes appeared in 1967. Katzburg was the author of: Zer Ẓ edek (1878), sermons on and expositions of the Bible and rabbinic dicta; Mevasser Ẓ edek (1911), on Avot; Mevasser Ẓ edek (1922), sermons; Iggeret Ẓ edek Olamim (1918), on socialism in the light of Torah and Judaism; Yalkut ha-Meliẓ ot, 2 vols. (1931–36), homilies on the Pentateuch; Raz Hadek (1938), religious philosophy; Pirḥ ei Kehunnah (1940), talmudic novellae; and Sheloshah Sefarim Niftaḥ im (1942), on halakhah and on Zionist topics.

18

Bibliography: A. Katzburg (ed.), Temunat ha-Gedolim (1925); H. Brody, Festschrift… Misrachi (1927); N. Ben-Menaḥ em, Sefer ha-Mizraḥ i (1946); idem, Sinai, 24 (1949); N. Katzburg, Aresheth, 1 (1958), 279–98; Ẓ . Zehavi, Toledot ha-Ẓ iyyonut be-Hungaryah, 1 (1966).

KATZENBERG, JEFFREY (1950– ), U.S. film industry executive. Born and raised in Manhattan, Katzenberg volunteered to work on John V. Lindsay’s New York City mayoral campaign in 1964, when just 14. He worked for the mayor for the next seven years, until he attained the position of controller of Lindsay’s Democratic presidential nomination campaign. By 1977 he had moved to California to be vice president of programming at Paramount television. Senior vice president of production in the company’s movie division from 1980 to 1982, Katzenberg became president of production for motion pictures and television in 1982, a position he held until 1984. When Paramount president Michael Eisner became company chairman at Disney Films in 1984, he took Katzenberg with him; the latter, as chairman of Walt Disney Studios, helped mastermind the strategy of diversification and increased production that saw Disney move from least successful to first place among Hollywood’s nine major distributors. Under Katzenberg’s guidance, Disney’s animated features were highly successful, with movies such as Beauty and the Beast (1991), Aladdin (1992), and The Lion King (1994) netting record grosses at the box office. By 1994, Disney was the most profitable studio in the world. In that year, however, Katzenberg was involved in a rancorous split from Disney after Eisner denied him the promotion to company president. In October 1994 Katzenberg, Steven *Spielberg, and David *Geffen announced the formation of DreamWorks, the first major new studio to be launched since Disney’s own creation 60 years previously. Its program was live-action films overseen by Spielberg, animated features handled by Katzenberg, record albums produced by Geffen, and multimedia products in cooperation with Microsoft’s Bill Gates. Under Katzenberg’s leadership, the company’s animation division developed into a high-quality computer-generated animation studio with production locations on several continents. As an executive producer, Katzenberg brought to the screen such popular animated feature films as The Prince of Egypt (1998), The Road to El Dorado (2000), Chicken Run (2000), Joseph: King of Dreams (2000), Shrek (producer, 2001), Spirit (producer, 2002), Shrek 4-D (producer, 2003), Sinbad (producer, 2003), Shrek 2 (2004), and Shark Tale (2004). In 2002, Shrek won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, making it the first full-length animated film in history to win an Oscar. In 2004 Katzenberg published Animation Art: From Pencil to Pixel, which he co-authored with Jerry Beck and Bill Plympton. Bibliography: K. Masters, The Keys to the Kingdom: How Michael Eisner Lost His Grip (2000); R. Grover, The Disney Touch (1991). [Rohan Saxena / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

katzenellenbogen, meir ben isaac

KATZENELENBOGEN, URIAH (1885–1980), Yiddish writer, journalist, and translator. Born in Vilna (Vilnius), Lithuania, he early became a member of the *Bund. His play Kraft un Libe (“Power and Love,” 1904) was one of the first examples of Yiddish literary modernism in Vilna. In 1913 he organized a group of the Jewish intelligentsia that stood for closer Jewish political and cultural contacts with other national groups in Lithuania. He edited the Yiddish cultural almanac Lite (1914–22) and the Russian weekly Nash Kraj (1914), where he advocated the multicultural coexistence of Lithuanian Jews and non-Jews. He left Europe in 1927 and taught in Yiddish schools in various cities in North America. He translated numerous works of Lithuanian, Belorussian, and Latvian literature into Yiddish. His major work was a unique collection of 600 Baltic folksongs in Yiddish translation, Daynes: Litvishe and Letishe Folkslider (“Daynes: Lithuanian and Latvian Folksongs,” 1930, 19362). He edited the massive yizkor-book of Lithuania, Lite (1951). Bibliography: Kh.M. Kayzerman-Vital, Yidishe Dikhter in Kanade (1934), 149–52; LNYL, 8 (1981), 124–5. [Mindaugas Kvietkauskas (2nd ed.)]

KATZENELLENBOGEN, family widely dispersed throughout Eastern and Central Europe. It originated in the town of Katzenelnbogen in Hesse, the birthplace of Meir ben Isaac *Katzenellenbogen (1473–1565), head of the Padua yeshivah. His son, SAMUEL JUDAH (1521–1597), inherited his father’s position; Samuel Judah’s son was Saul *Wahl (c. 1541–1617), the Polish Court Jew and legendary “king for a day.” Saul had six sons and five daughters, who married into the leading families of East European Jewry. Such was the fame of the family that men who married women members took their wives’ family name, as did R. Joel Ashkenazi who married R. Samuel’s daughter. There are at least 12 variant Hebrew spellings of the name as well as derivative forms such as Ellenbogen, Elbogen, Bogen, and Katzenelson. One of Saul’s sons, MEYER, an influential member of the *Councils of the Lands, was recorded as Kaẓ in Elin Bogen (Heb. kaẓ in, “officer,” “leader”). The family was widely dispersed, but its unity was maintained through meticulously kept family records. Members of the family intermarried with other prominent Jewish families (Te’omim, Heilprin, *Fraenkel, etc.) and produced many rabbis. Especially notable were David Tevel *Katzenellenbogen, rabbi of St. Petersburg, and Ẓ evi Hirsch Katzenellenbogen, Vilna communal leader. Ezekiel ben Abraham Katzenellenbogen was rabbi of Hamburg, Altona, and Wandsbeck (1714–49); his grandson, ABRAHAM BEN DAVID, rabbi in Slutsk and Brest-Litovsk, was an opponent of Ḥ asidism who conducted polemics with *Levi Isaac of Berdichev. Gabriel *Riesser, leader of German Jewry’s struggle for emancipation, was a descendant of the family through his father, ELIEZER (LAZARUS RIESSER). NAPHTALI HIRSCH BEN MOSES KATZENELLENBOGEN (c. 1715–1800), Landrabbiner of the Palatinate (1763), was the first to head the famous Mannheim Klaus (1768). His namesake, NAPHTALI HIRSCH BEN ELIEZER KATZENELLENBOGEN (d. 1823), ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

rabbi of Bamberg and Haguenau, participated in Napoleon’s *Sanhedrin. Bibliography: M. Ellenbogen, Ḥ evel ha-Kesef: Record of the Kacenelenbogen Family… (Heb. and Eng., 1937); M. Wollsteiner, Genealogische Uebersicht ueber einige Zweige der Nachkommenschaft des Rabbi Meir Katzenelenbogen von Padua (1898); J.B. Samuel, Records of the Samuel Family Including the Katzenelenbogen… (1912); Graetz, Hist, 5 (1949), 238–41 (on Ezekiel); N. Rosenstein, These are the Generations (1967). [Reuven Michael]

KATZENELLENBOGEN, DAVID TEVEL (1850–1930), rabbi and talmudic scholar in Russia. Born in Taurage, Lithuania, he was appointed rabbi in Virbalis, Lithuania, in 1876, serving there until 1908, when he became rabbi of St. Petersburg, where he remained until his death. He gained the respect of the czarist authorities and was able to have the ban on sheḥ itah in force in Finland canceled. In 1915 he headed the religious committee for the supply of kasher food to the Jewish soldiers in the Russian army. On his initiative a fund was established in the U.S. for the support of Russian refugees. Katzenellenbogen, whose notes to the Jerusalem Talmud first appeared in the Krotoschin edition of 1871, was the author of Ma’yan Mei Nefto’aḥ (1923) and Divrei David (1927). Bibliography: S.N. Gottlieb, Oholei Shem (1912), 369.

KATZENELLENBOGEN, MEIR BEN ISAAC (known as Maharam (acronym of Morenu Ha-Rav Meir) of Padua; 1473–1565), one of the greatest Italian rabbis and halakhists of his time. Meir’s father was the son-in-law of Jehiel *Luria, the first rabbi of Brest-Litovsk (Brisk). Meir was born in Prague where together with Shalom *Shakhna he studied under Jacob *Pollak. From Prague he went to Padua, where he studied under Judah b. Eliezer ha-Levi *Minz, marrying his granddaughter, Hannah, daughter of Abraham b. Judah ha-Levi *Minz. In 1525, after his father-in-law’s death, he was appointed rabbi of the Ashkenazi synagogue of Padua, serving there until his death. Meir was also head of the council of regional rabbis in Venice and he took an active part in their meetings despite his many other responsibilities. Many rabbis, including Moses *Isserles, addressed him in their responsa as the “av bet din of the republic of Venice.” He also represented the Padua region at Venice meetings in matters of a general nature, not only in religious affairs. On June 21, 1554 the heads of seven Italian communities (Venice, Rome, Bologna, Ferrara, Mantua, Reggio, and Modena) assembled in Ferrara and enacted takkanot for the benefit of the population. Katzenellenbogen presided and headed the list of signatories in the capacity of “delegate of representations of the republic of Venice.” He was renowned for his modesty, his benign disposition, and the fatherly interest he took in the students in his yeshivah of Padua, to which aspiring scholars streamed from near and far. The great esteem in which he was held by his contemporaries found expression in a tablet affixed to his seat in the Ashkenazi synagogue which read, “No man [has] sat there till this day,” as testified by Isaac Ḥ ayyim

19

katzenellenbogen, Ẓ evi hirsh

Kohen, a cantor who saw the tablet 120 years after Meir’s death. In 1555 Joshua *Soncino of Constantinople appealed to him to intervene against the boycott by the Jews of the port of *Ancona, a boycott supported by Don Joseph *Nasi, his mother-in-law Gracia Mendes *Nasi, and the greatest rabbis of Turkey. It is not known, however, whether Meir took any action. In 1558 he signed two bans against the study of Kabbalah. The great scholars of the generation, including Samuel di *Modena, Isaac *Foa, Joseph *Katz, Solomon *Luria, Moses Isserles, Obadiah *Sforno, and Moses *Alashkar, were in halakhic correspondence with him. His son Samuel Judah succeeded him after his death. Katzenellenbogen published the responsa of Mahari Mintz and Maharam Padua (Venice, 1553), including 16 responsa of Judah Minz salvaged from his writings, followed by the Seder Gittin va-Ḥ aliẓ ah of Abraham Minz, completed by Katzenellenbogen, and finally 90 of his own responsa, and Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah (Venice, 1550–51), with his own glosses and novellae. The publication of the Mishneh Torah, with an abridgment of Katzenellenbogen’s commentary and without Katzenellenbogen’s knowledge, by Marcantonio Justinian, rival of Katzenellenbogen’s co-publisher, the non-Jewish printer Bragadin, gave rise to a quarrel and recriminations and led finally to the burning of the Talmud in 1554 by order of the pope. Moses Isserles placed a ban on Justinian’s Mishneh Torah. In 1563 Katzenellenbogen, together with his partner, Ezra b. Isaac of Fano, published in Mantua the Midrash Tanḥ uma. In 1546 he published in Heddernheim, Germany, seliḥ ot (penitential prayers) with omissions and changes dictated by censorship. S.I. Mulder (see bibliography) claims that the first portrait to be painted of a Jew was that of Katzenellenbogen, which was made without his knowledge.

Bibliography: H.N. Maggid, Ir Vilna (1900), 232–48; S. Ginzburg, Historishe Shriftn, 2 (1937), 91–116. [Yehuda Slutsky]

KATZENELSON, BARUCH (1900–1968), Hebrew and Yiddish poet. Born in Slutsk, Belorussia, Katzenelson moved in 1922 to the U.S., where he studied and taught Hebrew. In 1934 he settled in Israel, where he lived in Kefar Sava and taught high school from 1939 to 1965. From the age of 13, he wrote in both Yiddish and Hebrew. Between 1919 and 1926 Katzenelson published poetry and literary criticism in Yiddish. From 1925 on his Hebrew poetry again appeared, and was published in most of the literary forums in the United States and Israel. His books of poetry are: Le-Or ha-Ner (1930), Be-Kur Demamah (1948), and Mi-Lev el Lev (1954). Yehudah Ereẓ and Avraham M. Koler edited his letters in two volumes (1970). Bibliography: Rejzen, Leksikon, 3 (1929), 536; N. Hinitz, in: Hadoar, 47 (1968), 593–4. [Getzel Kressel]

KATZENELLENBOGEN, Ẓ EVI HIRSH (Naphtali; 1796– 1868), one of the early maskilim in Vilna, Hebrew author, and educator. In his youth, he wrote Netivot Olam, a commentary on the Baraita of the 32 Rules (Vilna, 1822). He also wrote poetry and eulogies, among them a eulogy of R. Ḥ ayyim of *Volozhin, “Naḥ al Dimah” (“A Stream of Tears,” 1821). He was popular both with the old generation in Vilna and with the maskilim, and contributed to the periodicals Pirḥ ei Ẓ afon and Ha-Karmel. When the government rabbinical school was founded in Vilna in 1847, he became director of Hebrew studies despite the opposition of the Orthodox, and served for 18 years. Upon his retirement his son Ḥ ayyim succeeded him.

KATZENELSON, ITZHAK (1886–1944), poet and dramatist in Hebrew and in Yiddish. Born in Korelichi, near Novogrudok, in Russia, he received his early education from his father, the Hebrew writer Jacob Benjamin Katzenelson. He later lived in Lodz, where he opened a Hebrew secular school of which he was principal until the outbreak of World War II. During this period he visited Palestine a number of times but did not realize his dream of settling there. During the early years of the war he was in the Warsaw ghetto where he witnessed the methodic annihilation of the Jewish community of Warsaw, including his wife and two of his sons, and where he joined the Jewish partisan organization Deror. In possession of a Honduran passport, he was transferred to the Vittel concentration camp in France, in May 1943. In April 1944, however, he was deported to Auschwitz, where he and his surviving son perished on May 3, 1944. Katzenelson began his literary career in 1904, writing in Yiddish for Mordecai *Spector’s Yidishe Folkstsaytung and *Peretz’ Yidishe Bibliotek, and in Hebrew for *Frischmann’s Ha-Dor. During the Holocaust he wrote prolifically in both Hebrew and Yiddish, and kept a Hebrew diary which is a moving eyewitness account of the period. His poem, Dos Lid fun Oysgehargetn Yidishn Folk (“Poem of the Murdered Jewish People,” 1945) which he began in October 1943 and completed at Vittel in 1944, is one of the greatest literary expressions of the tragedy of the Holocaust. Written after he witnessed the extermination of the Jews, this poem gives a shattering account of what he saw and expresses his horror and grief, his protest and helplessness. While Katzenelson’s songs and poems for children and his light verse gained him a reputation as a poet who wrote about youth and the joy of life, he also wrote sad, ironic, and sentimental songs about tragic aspects of life. He was greatly influenced by Heine, whose poems he translated into Hebrew. His poems, with their original style and rhythm, combine lightness with a deep elegiac tone.

20

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: Ghirondi, in: Kerem Ḥ emed, 3 (1838), 91– 96; S.I. Mulder, Eene zeldzame medaille (1859), 3; Zunz, Gesch, 255f.; Zunz, Ritus, 148; I. Eisenstadt and S. Wiener, Da’at Kedoshim (1897–98), 82–84; S. Assaf, Mekorot u-Meḥ karim (1946), 240–6; M. Straschun, Mivḥ ar Ketavim (1969), 168–86; Schwarzfuchs, in: Scritti in Memoria di Leone Carpi (Italian pt.; 1967), 112–32; Siev, in: Hadorom, 28 (1968), 160–95; Tishby, in: Perakim, 1 (1967/68), 131–82; I.S. Lange, in: Miscellanea di Studi in Memoria di D. Disigni (1969), 49–76 (Heb. pt.). [Shlomo Tal]

katzenelson, nissan

Many of Katzenelson’s poems were set to music and became favorite children’s songs and Israeli folk songs. These include: Mah Yafim ha-Leylot bi-Khena’an; Raḥ el Amdah al ha-Ayin; Ḥ ad Gadya; Heidad, Heidad; Ginnah Ketannah; Gillu ha-Gelilim; Ḥ amesh Shanim al Mikha’el; and the Ḥ anukkah play song Antiochus. In his Hebrew prose poem “Bi-Gevulot Lita” (“In Lithuania’s Borders,” 1909), he writes with depth and emotion about both the spiritual and the earthly. The major problem and purpose of existence is treated by Katzenelson in his dramatic poem “Ha-Navi” (“The Prophet,” 1922), which he considered his greatest work. A number of Katzenelson’s plays have been produced. His Hebrew works appeared in three volumes (1938); Ketavim Aḥ aronim (“Final Works,” 1947) was published posthumously. In 1950, an institute for research of the Holocaust, which bears his name, was established at Kibbutz Loḥ amei ha-Getta’ot in Israel. Katzenelson’s biblical play Al Neharot Bavel was published in 1995. An English translation of his Vittel Diary (May 1943–September 1943) was published in 1964. A translation of Dos Lid fun Oysgehargetn Yidishn Folk appeared as The Song of the Murdered Jewish People in 1980. Katzenelson’s Ketavim appeared in 1982, followed by Yeḥ iel Szeintuch’s edition of Ketavim she-Niẓ lu mi-Geto Varshah (1990). Bibliography: A. Ben-Or, Toledot ha-Sifrut ha-Ivrit haḤ adashah, 3 (1950), 120–9; Ẓ . Katzenelson-Nachumov, Yitẓ ḥ ak Katzenelson (Yid., 1948); J.J. Trunk, Poyln (1951), 145–66; Rejzen, Leksikon, 3 (1929), 539–46; Kressel, Leksikon, 2 (1967), 791–2; S. Even-Shoshan (ed.), Yesh li Shir le-Yaldei Yisrael (1954), 122, 125–34, 137–49. Add. Bibliography: S. Even-Shoshan, Y. Katzenelson Mekonen ha-Sho’ah (1964); N.H. Rosenbloom, “The Threnodist of the Holocaust,” in: Judaism, 26 (1977), 232–47; Y. Szeintuch, “The Work of Y. Katzenelson in the Warsaw Ghetto,” in: Jerusalem Quareterly, 26 (1983), 46–61; Y. Szeintuch, “Y. Katzenelson and His ‘Vittel Diary,’ ” in: Jewish Book Annual, 42 (1984), 199–207; E. Shmueli, “Al Shirat Y. Katzenelson,” in: Mi-Bifenim, 46:3 (1984), 339–50; E. Lahad, Y. Szeintuch, and Z. Shaner (eds.), Ha-Yeẓ irah ha-Sifrutit be-Yiddish u-ve-Ivrit ba-Geto (1984). [Elias Schulman]

KATZENELSON, JUDAH LEIB BENJAMIN (pseudonym Buki ben Yogli; 1846–1917), physician, writer, and scholar. Born in Chernigov, he studied at the yeshivot of Bobruisk but became attracted to the Haskalah, and attended the government rabbinical seminary at Zhitomir. He later studied medicine at the Military Medical Academy at St. Petersburg, where he practiced medicine. Katzenelson wrote both in Hebrew and in Russian and from 1879 to 1884 he was a correspondent for the Russian-Jewish newspaper, Russki Yevrey, using it as a means through which he called on the Russian-Jewish intelligentsia to help their persecuted brethren. Katzenelson believed that the Haskalah with its particular emphasis on trades and agricultural work would solve the problems of Russian Jewry. In 1891 he published a series of articles in Ha-Meliẓ in which he called for a return to the soil. He became a member of the Central Committee of the *Jewish Colonization Association, which was established for this purpose. Katzenelson ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

was also active in Ḥ evrat Mefiẓ ei ha-Haskalah (“The Society for the Dissemination of Enlightenment”) and was chairman of Agudat Ḥ ovevei Sefat Ever (“Society of Friends of the Hebrew Language”) in Russia. A lecturer at the Institute of Jewish Studies established by Baron David *Guenzburg in St. Petersburg, he headed the school after the death of its founder. In 1909 Katzenelson visited Palestine and returned to Russia full of enthusiasm for Jewish agriculture and the renaissance of the Hebrew language. In 1905, the first and only volume of Kol Kitvei J.L. Katzenelson, entitled Ḥ ezyonot ve-Hirhurim, was published. His studies on early Jewish history were mostly written in Russian; he was also one of the editors of the Jewish-Russian encyclopedia Ỵ evreyskaya Entsiklopediya. Among his literary endeavors, his best-known work is Shirat ha-Zamir (“The Song of the Nightingale,” 1895), a novel whose protagonist is a rabbinical student yearning for agricultural life. The motif recurs in Adnei ha-Sadeh, an allegorical legend in which a wanderer comes upon a race of men who are tied to the soil by a living cord. His envy and longing also to be bound to the land echoes that of the student in Shirat ha-Zamir. A collection of Katzenelson’s legends and stories were published posthumously in 1918, and in 1944 Jacob *Fichmann edited an anthology of his stories entitled Shirat ha-Zamir (the main work included in it), to which he wrote an introduction on the life of the author. [Yehuda Slutsky]

Since he was well versed in rabbinical and general literature as well as in medicine, Katzenelson was able to make significant contributions to the study of ancient Hebrew medicine. His medical historical articles, first published in the Hebrew journal Ha-Yom and later in book form under the title Remaḥ Evarim (St. Petersburg, 1888), considerably enriched the medical terminology of the Hebrew language. His chief work, Ha-Talmud ve-Ḥ okhmat ha-Refu’ah (“Talmud and Medicine”), published posthumously in Berlin (1928), includes studies on talmudic osteology, pathologic anatomy, and hemophilia. His other medical historical contributions concern nomenclature of skin diseases in the Bible, ritual cleanliness in the Bible and Talmud, and anatomy in the Talmud. [Suessmann Muntner] Bibliography: D. Frishman, Parẓ ufim (1931), 54–61; M. Ribolow, Sefer ha-Massot (1928), 72–77; Z. Shazar, Or Ishim, 1 (1964), 154–62; S.R. Kagan, Jewish Medicine (1952), 555; Waxman, Literature, 4 (19602), 154ff., 702ff.; Rejzen, Leksikon, 3 (1929), 536–9; Kressel, Leksikon, 2 (1967), 790–1; P. Lachower, Meḥ karim ve-Nisyonot, 1 (1925), 135–41; J. Klausner, Yoẓ erim u-Vonim, 1 (19432), 293–7; B. Katz, in: J.L. Katzenelson, Mah she-Ra’u Einai ve-Shame’u Oznai (1947), 169–277.

KATZENELSON, NISSAN (1862–1923), Russian Zionist. Born in Bobruisk, Belorussia, he completed his studies in physics in Berlin. He settled in Libau (Liepaja), where he worked in his father’s timber business. Joining the Zionist movement at its inception, at the Third Congress (1899) he was elected a director of the *Jewish Colonial Trust. He was

21

katzenelson, yosef

one of *Herzl’s close aides and made the preparations for his Russian journey, on which he accompanied him (1903). Herzl appointed Katzenelson as his personal representative in all negotiations with the Russian authorities. In 1905 he was elected chairman of the board of the Jewish Colonial Trust. He participated in the activities of the League for Equal Rights for Jews in Russia. Elected to the First Duma (1906), Katzenelson joined the Russian liberal Kadet party, and as its spokesman took part in the work of the Duma finance committee. When the First Duma was dissolved, he was among the signatories of the manifesto calling for civil disobedience and the nonpayment of taxes (“The Vyborg Manifesto”), for which he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. After his release, he concentrated on local communal work and was chairman of the committee for Jewish emigration in Libau, one of the chief Baltic ports of Jewish emigration from Russia. In World War I he moved to Petrograd and helped in relief work for Jewish refugees, returning to Libau in 1918. Bibliography: S.L. Zitron, Leksikon Ẓ iyyoni (1924), 594–5; Yevreyskaya Letopis, 3 (1924), 230–1; J. Slutzky, in: Bobruisk, 2 (Heb. and Yid., 1967), 518–9 and index. [Yehuda Slutsky]

KATZENELSON, YOSEF (1896–1940), *Revisionist leader. Born in Bobruisk, Belorussia, Katzenelson went to Palestine in 1924. He was active in the Revisionist movement in Palestine and the *Irgun Ẓ eva’i Le’ummi. In 1938 he was sent on a mission to Europe where he headed the “illegal” immigration operations of the New Zionist Organization until the outbreak of World War II. In January 1940, he fell ill and died in Nazi-occupied Warsaw. His remains were brought to Jerusalem in 1957.

of study of energy exchange, known as mechanochemistry. The contemporary developments in the field of nanotechnology, such as molecular robots, are based on mechanochemistry. His interest in thermodynamics led him to develop a mathematical approach to exact research on the permeability of biological membranes. His mathematical theory, summarized in his Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics in Biophysics, was accepted and applied by scientists worldwide. As a result of this research he was awarded the Israel Prize in natural science together with Ora *Kedem in 1961 and many more important prizes. Katzir was instrumental in founding the Israel Academy of Sciences in 1959 and was its vice president from 1960 to 1962 and president from 1962 to 1968. Among his many other activities, he played an active role in founding Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Katzir was involved in military defense, both as a member of the *Haganah and as one of the founders of Hemed, the scientific corps of the Israel Defense Forces. He was also an extraordinarily gifted lecturer and was considered one of the fathers of popular science in Israel. Over the years he published numerous popular articles and books such as The Crucible of Scientific Revolution (1971), and lectured in nonscientific forums. He was committed to humanity in general and to Israeli society in particular, and was very much involved in day-to-day affairs such as education, community action, and defense. On May 30, 1972, Aharon Katzir was murdered while waiting for his luggage during a terrorist attack at Ben-Gurion Airport. [Bracha Rager (2nd ed.)]

KATZIR (Katchalski), AHARON (1913–1972), Israeli biochemist and biophysicist. Born in Kiev, Russia, he immigrated to Ereẓ Israel in 1925 with his family, which included his brother Ephraim, who later became the fourth president of the State of Israel (see *Katzir, Ephraim). He studied biology and chemistry at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and completed his doctorate with honors. To complement his studies in life sciences he also studied mathematics and philosophy and began working at the university as an assistant in the Department of Theoretical Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry. At the invitation of Prof. Chaim *Weizmann he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science in 1948, where he established and chaired the Department of Polymer Research until his death. To strengthen the ties between basic and industrial research he also established the institute’s Department of Plastics. In his scientific research Katzir sought to understand the molecular basis of the processes of life. His discoveries in the study of polyelectrolytes led to a new field

KATZIR (Katchalski), EPHRAIM (1916– ), fourth president of the State of Israel (1973–78); biochemist and biophysicist. Born in Kiev, Russia, Katchalski was taken to Ereẓ Israel in 1925. He studied life sciences at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and completed his doctorate under the supervision of Prof. Max Frankel, head of the Department of Theoretical and Macromolecular Chemistry at the University (1941–45). He joined the Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel (1948), and served as head of the Department of Biophysics (1949–73). He was chief scientist of the Ministry of Defense (1966–68), and was instrumental in establishing the office of Chief Scientist in the major government ministries as well as in the promotion of high-tech industry and the establishment of the biotechnology industry in Israel. He was influential in advancing education in the country. His research dealt mainly with the synthesis and study of the physicochemical and biological properties of polyamino acids as protein models and the synthetic polyamino acids synthesized, such as polyglycine, polylysine, polyglutamic acid, and polyproline. Katchalski wrote extensively on proteins and natural products such as nucleic acids. He was a member of many national and international societies and in 1966 was the first Israeli to be elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Katchalski was a brother of Aharon *Katzir, the polymer chemist. In the early days of the State of Israel, together with his brother and Prof E.D. *Bergmann, he was among

22

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: Tidhar, 1 (1947), 235–6; D. Niv, Ma’arekhot haIrgun ha-Ẓ eva’i ha-Le’ummi, 2 (1965), 3 (1967), index; H. Lazar-Litai, Af-Al-Pi (1959), index; Bobruisk – Sefer Zikkaron, 2 (1967), 559–62. [David Niv]

katznelson, berl

the founders of the research, development, and production of novel weapons for the Israeli army. Upon assuming the presidency, Katchalski adopted the name Katzir, which had previously been adopted by his brother Aharon, who was murdered at Ben-Gurion Airport in 1972 by a Japanese terrorist in the service of the Palestinians. As president he hosted President *Sadat of Egypt during his historic 1977 visit to Jerusalem.

liografiyah,” in: Erev Rav (1990), 360–362; Y. Oren, “Azah mi-Mavet ha-Ahavah,” in: Apiryon, 41 (1996), 21–33; S. Schifman, “Ha-Im Ani Nimẓ et: Sippur ha-Ḥ anikhah ha-Nashi eẓ el Z. Shalev ve-J. Katzir,” in: Mikan, 2 (2001), 125–141; Y. Ben-Mordechai, “Kevod ha-Adam veḤ eruto shel ha-Maḥ azai: Al ‘Devorah Baron’ shel J. Katzir,” in: Bamah, 162 (2001), 5–11; M. Muchnik, “Sentence Length in two Novellas by Y. Katzir,” in: Hebrew Studies, 43 (2002), 7–20; E. Adivi-Shoshan, in: Iton 77, 285 (2003), 20–25; E. Carandina, “Il sabra ‘senza qualità’ in un racconto di Y. Katzir,” in: Annali di Ca’Foscari, 43:3 (2004), 43–58.

[Bracha Rager (2nd ed.)]

[Anat Feinberg (2nd ed.)]

KATZIR, JUDITH (1963– ), Israeli writer. Katzir was born in Haifa. She studied general literature and cinema at Tel Aviv University and began publishing her stories in the Israeli press in the 1980s. Her first book, Sogrim et ha-Yam (“Closing the Sea,” 1992), a collection of four novellas, appeared in 1990. The opening story, “Schlafstunde,” recounts the first love experience of the narrator and her cousin, and interweaves moments of sexual excitement with the story of death in the family. It is already in this novella that Katzir’s rich language and powerful, sensual descriptions are evident. Another story, “Fellini’s Shoes,” tells of a hotel waitress who dreams of becoming a movie star with the help of a failed film director who apparently had once met Fellini. “Disneyel” is a moving monologue of a daughter to her unconscious mother, and “Closing the Sea” recounts a disillusioned friendship. Katzir’s first novel, Le-Matisse Yesh et ha-Shemesh ba-Beten (“Matisse Has the Sun in his Belly,” 1995), is the story of a passionate liaison between a young woman and an older man, ending when the woman emancipates herself and goes her own way. Three novellas make up Katzir’s collection Migdalorim shel Yabasha (“Inland Lighthouses,” 1999) and all three have in common the sense of resignation and the acceptance of a stable life in lieu of passionate intensity. In her second novel, Hineh Ani Matḥ ilah (“Here I Begin,” 2003), Katzir tells the story of Rivi, an imaginative and talented schoolgirl and her intense, erotic relationship with Michaela, her teacher of literature. The story oscillates between past experiences recorded by Rivi as a girl who is writing diary-letters to Anne Frank, and her new role as wife and mother, who nonetheless remains in touch with the teacher in New York. Friendship and physical attraction of women open a window on a subject rarely touched upon in Hebrew literature. Katzir also wrote books for children and a play about the writer Devorah *Baron. She occasionally taught courses in creative writing and worked as editor for Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishing House. All her books were bestsellers, and she received the Platinum and the Golden Book Prizes. In 1996 she was awarded the Prime Minister’s Prize for literature. Her books were translated into a number of languages (including German, Dutch, and French). “Schlafstunde” is included in G. Abramson (ed.), The Oxford Book of Hebrew Short Stories (1996). Further information concerning translations are available at the ITHL website at www.ithl.org.il.

KATZMAN, SAM (1901–1973), U.S. motion picture producer. Born in New York, Katzman entered the film industry as a prop boy at age 13 and worked his way up, learning virtually every aspect of film production before becoming a producer himself. A prolific producer, his more than 230 films (between 1934 and 1974) ran the gamut as well, starting with action/adventure serials and proceeding to cover such genres as westerns, science fiction, teenage musicals, and hippie/biker films. Many of his serials were based on comic strip and radio characters. Chiefly a producer for low-budget films, Katzman’s movies include the Jungle Jim series; Brenda Starr, Reporter (1945); the first live-action Superman (1948); Batman and Robin (1949); Captain Video (1951); The Lost Planet (1953); Drums of Tahiti (1954); The Gun That Won the West (1955); Rock around the Clock (1956); The Werewolf (1956); Escape from San Quentin (1957); Let’s Twist Again (1962); Kissin’ Cousins (1964); When the Boys Meet the Girls (1965); Get Yourself a College Girl (1965); The Fastest Guitar Alive (1967); The Young Runaways (1968); and The Loners (1972). [Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

°KATZMANN, FRIEDRICH (Fritz; 1906–1957), Nazi official, SS and police leader in the Radom district of the General Government from 1939 to 1941 (see *Poland, Holocaust Period). He joined the party in 1928 and the SS in 1930. In 1941 he was appointed SS and Police Leader in the newly occupied district of Galicia. In this capacity Katzmann brutally and ruthlessly organized the destruction of its local Jewry. According to Katzmann’s report (Nuremberg document L-18), 434,329 Jews were deported (ausgesiedelt) by June 30, 1943, and 21,156 were placed in 21 labor camps, but this number was being steadily “reduced.” After the war Katzmann lived under the assumed name of Bruno Albrecht but confessed his true identity before his death in Darmstadt. Bibliography: R. Henkys, Die nationalsozialistischen Gewaltverbrechen (1964), index; IMT, Trial of the Major War Criminals, 24 (1949), index; G. Reitlinger, Final Solution (1968), index; R. Hilberg, Destruction of the European Jews (1961), index. [Yehuda Reshef]

Bibliography: H. Herzig, “Efsharuyot Aḥ erot be-Sogrim et ha-Yam,” in: Siman Keriah, 21 (1990), 293–299; R. Kritz, “J. Katzir, Bib-

KATZNELSON, BERL (Beeri; 1887–1944), central figure of the Second Aliyah, a leader of the Zionist Labor movement, educator, and writer. Born in Bobruisk, Belorussia, son of a merchant, maskil, and a member of Ḥ ovevei Zion, Katznel-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

23

katznelson, berl

son was a frail child. He attended ḥ eder irregularly and was taught by private tutors, with his father’s well-stocked Hebrew, Yiddish, and Russian library serving as a constant source of instruction and knowledge. A passionate reader with an exceptional memory and keen interest in current problems, he mastered Hebrew literature and Russian revolutionary and scientific writing, took the requisite state examinations, and served for some time as tutor in a rural family. In 1902, as an usher at the Russian Zionist Conference in Minsk, Katznelson was deeply impressed by Ḥ .D. *Horowitz’s lecture on the abnormality of the Jewish economic structure. While still young, he had already developed a reputation as an acute and independent-minded debater on theoretical problems of nationalism and socialism. In his own neighborhood, as well as in Kiev and Odessa, he took part in public discussions with leaders of the various movements, including Ber *Borochov. Although he first joined *Po’alei Zion, Katznelson shifted his allegiance to the *Zionist-Socialists, whose leaders, Naḥ man *Syrkin, Jacob *Lestschinsky, and Nahum *Shtif, were convinced by their study of contemporary Jewish life that the future of the Diaspora would be dark and uncertain. For a short time Katznelson joined the ranks of Ha-Teḥ iyyah, attracted by its national spirit, revolutionary anti-Czarist ardor, and devotion to Jewish self-defense, including such terrorist acts as the attempted assassination of Krushevan, the organizer of the Kishinev pogrom. He was repelled, however, by its lack of interest in actual settlement in Ereẓ Israel, as well as its negative attitude toward the revival of Hebrew. In Bobruisk, Katznelson took a post in a school for poor girls, subsidized by the Jewish Society for the Propagation of Enlightenment (Mefiẓ ei Haskalah), where he taught Hebrew literature and Jewish history, both in Yiddish, and sent to the society’s headquarters reports that were published in its monthly pedagogic journal. He also served as librarian in the Hebrew-Yiddish public library that had been established in Bobruisk to counter the municipality’s Russian library. Beloved by the young people who came to him for books, he became their guide and teacher. In 1908, Katznelson wrote in one of his letters: “What I want is to go to Ereẓ Israel, to do something worthwhile, to light a little spark. I am drawn to the stubborn, hard-working few who have abandoned everything they had here to begin a new life and free themselves of Exile.” This had been his goal since childhood. In order to achieve it and to be able to bring his family after him, he decided to learn a trade. At first he worked for a tinsmith; then went to the “Trud” Trade School in Odessa, where he was an iron engraver; and finally he became a laborer in a Bobruisk foundry. Lacking dexterity, he found these efforts enormously difficult and became deeply depressed. In the fall of 1908, after having been rejected for military service and suffering from a severe illness, he was able to sail from Odessa with his pay from the Hebrew library and a prize from the Society for the Propagation of Enlightenment. Katznelson felt that the Zionist movement had begun by summoning the Jewish people to greatness, but only a de-

cade later its leaders were lost in trifles, playing with superficial nationalism and elections to parliaments in the countries of the Diaspora. Even Labor Zionism, initially inspired by messianic hopes for the Jewish people and the world, had become the “servant of alien revolutions.” His own comrades were opposed to his aliyah, and he kept his departure a secret from virtually all of them. Though he met disillusioned young people returning to Europe from Ereẓ Israel both in Odessa and in Jaffa, he was undismayed by their scorn for Zionism and for the “naive newcomers misled by Zionist propagandists.” When he landed at Jaffa, making his way among the crowds of Arabs on the shore, he felt certain that this was his “final destination” and that he had broken completely with the past. His only friend in Ereẓ Israel, whom he knew from home, was the poet David Shimonovitz (*Shimoni), who had left a few months before Katznelson and had become a watchman in the vineyards of Judea. Katznelson found work at Bahria, about an hour by foot from *Petaḥ Tikvah. He shared a room in *Ein Gannim with A.D. *Gordon and Joseph Ḥ ayyim *Brenner, who quickly became his closest friends. As he was employed only intermittently, he spent much time wandering about the country. His observations led him to question the value of “the conquest of labor” in the Jewish villages, although this was then the principal goal of the labor movement. He was depressed by the poverty and dependence of the workers in those villages; by the Jewish overseers armed with whips; and by the farmers’ eagerness to employ Arabs. He envisaged instead free settlement of self-employed workers on the nationally owned land of the *Jewish National Fund (JNF). His devotion to the principles of the JNF led him to conceive the idea of the smallholders’ cooperative (later called *moshav ovedim), while his pursuit of equality in work and life led him to the concept of the kevuẓ ah. When the Kinneret Farm was established by the *Palestine Office of the Zionist Organization, Katznelson made his way there. Along with the other workers, he was in a constant state of conflict with the administration. When the head of the Palestine Office, Arthur *Ruppin, was finally asked to come to Kinneret to settle matters, Katznelson was chosen to present the workers’ case, demanding that the workers themselves be allowed to manage their affairs. Katznelson became secretary of the Council of Galilean Farm Workers, which was founded during his stay at Kinneret. A year later, when he returned to Petaḥ Tikvah, the first workers’ conference in Judea (1911) elected him secretary of the Council of Judean Farm Workers. His first essay, “Mi-Bifnim” (“From Within”), published in Ha-Po’el ha-Ẓ a’ir (Autumn 1911) described his disillusionment with the Zionist and even the Ẓ e’irei Zion and Po’alei Zion movements for trying to influence life in Ereẓ Israel though their members remained in the Diaspora: “We workers here are not simply a small fraction of the Jewish working class, but a completely unique group – selfreliant, self-supporting – something whole…. If ever we, as an organized group, enter into connection with a movement abroad, it will have to be a movement not merely ‘interested’

24

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

katznelson, berl

in Ereẓ Israel, but dedicated to the ideal of personal aliyah, to a life of labor and liberation of the personality.” Returning to Kinneret in the World War I period of hunger and want, Katznelson, together with Meir Rotberg, proposed the establishment of consumer cooperatives, to which he gave the name “Hamashbir” (see *Hamashbir Hamerkazi). To meet the health problems of the workers, almost all of whom were unmarried and without families or homes, he helped initiate Kuppat Ḥ olim (the Sick Fund). He also began to develop a network of cultural activities – lectures, libraries, adult education, translations of world classics, and book publishing. When news of *He-Ḥ alutz reached Katznelson during World War I, he wrote a memorable epistle to the ḥ alutz movement (1917), setting forth a program of agricultural and cultural training to be followed by its members until it became possible for them to come to Ereẓ Israel. In “Toward the Future,” an address delivered at the seventh conference of agricultural workers on Purim, 1918 – when only a small number of Jews had managed to remain in Judea, and Galilee was cut off entirely – Katznelson called on the labor parties to unite in order to establish a self-reliant working community. Influenced by reading this address, David *Ben-Gurion, then in the ranks of the *Jewish Legion (with which he had returned to Palestine), enthusiastically agreed with the call for labor unity. Katznelson joined the Jewish Legion as a volunteer in 1918, serving until 1920. In the Legion Ben-Gurion met Katznelson, whom he had hardly known before. The two addressed an assembly of legionnaires in the Tell-al-Kabīr Camp, and from that moment on the movement for labor unity began to gain adherents. A committee was established representing Po’alei Zion, Ha-Po’el ha-Ẓ a’ir and nonpartisans. In the three centers of the Agricultural Workers’ Union – Judea, Samaria, and Galilee – a committee was elected to work toward the unification of the three area councils and to investigate the feasibility of a general union of workers. Katznelson was asked to compose and publish a program for working-class unity in Ereẓ Israel (“*Aḥ dut ha-Avodah”), which was to be affiliated with the Zionist movement and the world socialist movement. Through large-scale immigration, the program was to recreate Jewish national life in Ereẓ Israel in the form of a labor society, based on freedom and equality, self-reliance, control over its property, and selfdetermination in matters of economy and culture. The means toward this end would be national ownership of the soil and of natural resources; public-owned capital; a pioneering aliyah; and dissemination of the Hebrew language and culture among all Jews. In the spring of 1919, the conference of agricultural workers convened at Petaḥ Tikvah to vote on the issue of labor unity. The lecturer on this issue was Katznelson, and his program was adopted, with Ha-Po’el ha-Ẓ a’ir abstaining. The conference defined the aim of Zionism as the establishment of a free Jewish state in Ereẓ Israel. Katznelson was chosen to edit Kunteres, the newly created weekly that voiced Aḥ dut ha-Avodah’s ideas. Labor unity was still incomplete, with

the majority of Ha-Po’el ha-Ẓ a’ir remaining outside the new framework. In 1920, in accordance with the proposal made by Joseph *Trumpeldor, a General Federation of Jewish Labor (the *Histadrut) was established at a conference in Haifa. HaPo’el ha-Ẓ a’ir and Aḥ dut ha-Avodah still continued to exist independently, and Katznelson and his colleagues on Kunteres continued to urge that the two merge, first in Ereẓ Israel and then abroad. The union was eventually achieved in 1930, when a united labor party – *Mapai – was founded. A decision to found a labor daily followed the establishment of the Histadrut. Katznelson insisted that the editor be elected by the national conference of the Histadrut and thus derive his authority directly from it, as did the members of the Histadrut Executive. In addition, the editor was to be free to choose the members of his staff. After protracted discussion and debate, the first edition of Davar was published in 1925 according to Katznelson’s terms. He was selected as the editor and chose a staff of five. His moral authority and the influence he exercised over his colleagues attracted many attentive readers to the paper, even outside its own movement, and made it a spiritual guide for the labor class and many of the intelligentsia. Katznelson was a member of the delegation sent to the United States in 1921 to muster support among American Jewish workers for the Workers’ Bank (Bank haPo’alim), established by the Histadrut. This journey marked the beginning of the close relationship between labor in Ereẓ Israel and the American Jewish trade unions, which had been far removed from Zionism up to that time. Thereafter, annual delegations from the Histadrut came to America to work with the Gewerkschaften (Trade Union) Campaign for the Histadrut and brought “Labor Palestine” close to masses of Jews in the United States and Canada. Katznelson believed that the JNF was the most important Zionist factor in the building of a labor society. He was appointed a director of the Fund by the Zionist Organization and was devoted to it until his death; however, he refused to join either the Zionist executive or the executive of the Va’ad Le’ummi. In order to understand the attitudes of the younger generation, he would sometimes visit groups abroad anonymously, and he invested all his ardor and talent in youth seminars at Reḥ ovot, on the Carmel, and at Ben Shemen. A large part of the 12 volumes of his collected works consists of his lectures at seminars and conferences which he reworked into essays. All his life Katznelson was acutely aware of the importance of fostering the relationship between the yishuv and the Diaspora; viewing Labor Zionism as the Jewish revolution, equal to the revolutions of other nations; maintaining the influence of eternal Jewish values and of Hebrew literature in the movement; and thoroughly imbuing the younger generation with the age-old culture of the Jewish people. He would never compromise with his principles, even when he stood virtually alone. His was one of the few voices in labor circles to press for observance of the Sabbath and festivals, dietary laws in Histadrut kitchens, and circumcision in the kibbutzim. He

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

25

katznelson, raḤ el

showed special concern for the religiously observant members of the Histadrut and the attitude of educational institutions toward the hallowed traditions of Judaism. He was convinced that not compulsion, but the inculcation of affection and understanding for tradition, would bring young people to respect and appreciate the Jewish religious heritage. Katznelson differed from Weizmann and Ben-Gurion in his opposition to the partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state, as proposed by the Peel Commission in 1939. When Great Britain became increasingly hostile, he urged active struggle against the Mandatory power. Both at Zionist Congresses and within the yishuv, he pressed for “illegal” immigration, stating: “From now on, not the pioneer but the refugee will lead us.” Under his guidance, his disciples parachuted into Nazi-held territory to try to aid Jewish survivors. At the very beginning of World War II, Katznelson prophesied that the Jews would have to emerge from the war with a Jewish state. Ultimately he reluctantly accepted the idea of partition for the sake of free Jewish immigration, which otherwise would not have been feasible. The last stage of his activity before his death was the establishment and successful direction of the Histadrut’s publishing house, Am Oved, as editor in chief. On Aug. 15, 1944, Berl Katznelson died in Jerusalem. He was buried in the cemetery of Kevuẓ at Kinneret. Bet Berl at Ẓ ofit, Oholo on Lake Kinneret, and Kibbutz *Be’eri are all monuments to his memory. Bibliography: M. Shnir (ed.), Al Berl Katznelson, Zikhronot ve-Divrei Ha’arakhah (1952); Z. Goldberg, Perakim be-Mishnato ha-Ḥ evratit shel Berl Katznelson (1964); D. Shimoni, Pirkei Zikhronot (1953), 235–44; Z. Shazar, Or Ishim (1963), 108–34; Gilboa, in: Ot, nos. 3–4 (1968), 120–4; M. Sharett, Orot she-Kavu (1969), 39–55; Iggerot B. Katznelson, 1900–1914, ed. by J. Sharett (1961); 1919–1922, ed. by Y. Ereẓ and A.M. Koller (1970). [Shneur Zalman Shazar]

his work in participating in the various study circles that met in their home. Raḥ el Shazar published her first essays in 1918 and from then contributed to the labor press in Ereẓ Israel. Her articles were collected in two works, Massot u-Reshimot (“Essays and Articles,” 1946) and Al Admat ha-Ivrit (“On the Soil of Hebrew,” 1966). She also published Tenu’at ha-Po’elet, Mifaleha u-She’ifoteha (“The Projects and Aspirations of the Women Workers’ Movement,” 1941) and She-Livvuni ve-Einan, essays on women active in public life (1969). Bibliography: Z. Katznelson, in: La-Merḥ av (May 20, 1968); I. Harari, Ishah va-Em be-Yisrael (1959), 358–60; D. Sadan, Bein Din le-Ḥ eshbon (1963), 364–9; Kressel, Leksikon, 2 (1967), 904–5. [Getzel Kressel]

KATZNELSON, REUBEN (1890–1977), Ereẓ Israel pioneer in medical services, brother of Raḥ el (Shazar) *Katznelson. Born in Bobruisk, Belorussia, Katznelson was wounded in 1905 in a pogrom while on duty in the Jewish self-defense organization. In 1906 he was a member of the territorialist movement called the “Zionist Socialists (SS)” and later joined the Zionist student society He-Ḥ aver in Kiev. At the outbreak of World War I he was in Ereẓ Israel and worked in Tel Aviv in building and as an agricultural laborer in Reḥ ovot, where he served as chairman of the workers’ council. Deported by the Turks at the beginning of World War I he went to Alexandria, where he joined Joseph *Trumpeldor in the Zion Mule Corps; at the time the corps was disbanded, he had achieved the rank of sergeant major. In 1920 Katznelson was appointed director of the department of statistics of the Hadassah Medical Organization and in 1922–30 served as assistant director of Hadassah. In 1931 he established a medical organization for the Jewish villages (moshavot) in Palestine and became the director of Kuppat Ḥ olim Ammamit (see State of Israel: *Health Services). In the same year he joined the General Zionists, later serving as a member of its national council. He was also the chairman of the Organization of Demobilized Soldiers. His son SHMUEL *TAMIR (1923–1987) was an Israeli politician and lawyer.

KATZNELSON (Shazar), RAḤ EL (1888–1975), leader of the working women’s movement in Ereẓ Israel, Hebrew writer, editor, and wife of the third president of the State of Israel, Zalman *Shazar. Born in Bobruisk, Belorussia, she studied in Russia and Germany and was active in Jewish working women’s circles. She settled in Ereẓ Israel in 1912 and worked in agriculture in the Jezreel Valley and Galilee. Raḥ el Shazar was active in the women’s labor movement during the Second Aliyah and was the principal speaker during the first women workers’ conventions. With the establishment of *Aḥ dut ha-Avodah (A), she became the cultural coordinator of the movement and fulfilled the same post in the Histadrut from its establishment in 1920. In 1920 she married Zalman Shazar. Throughout her life she was active in the women workers’ movement and carried out various missions abroad on its behalf and for the Histadrut. She edited the central journal of the women’s movement, Devar ha-Po’elet (1934–59), and an anthology on its 25t anniversary, Im Pa’amei ha-Dor, 2 vols. (1964). After her husband’s inauguration as president of the state, she shared

KATZNELSON, SHULAMIT (1919–1999), Ulpan founder and director. Katznelson was born in Geneva, Switzerland, and at the age of two came to Eretz Israel. Her father, Dr. Shmuel Katznelson, was a pioneer of public health care and social work in Israel. Her mother, Batsheva Katznelson, was an educator and member of the Second Knesset. Katznelson studied social work and received her master’s degree from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. In 1951 she founded one of the first three ulpanim (intensive Hebrew-language courses) in Israel. As founder and director of Ulpan Akiva in Netanyah, she was cited as an outstanding example of Hebrew humanism in adult education. Katznelson managed Ulpan Akiva until 1996. From the outset, Ulpan Akiva was open not only to Jewish immigrants (ollim) but to the non-Jewish population as well. Subsequently, Ulpan Akiva included the teaching of

26

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: Tidhar, 1 (1947), 305–6.

kaufman, andy

spoken Arabic. In 1983 Katznelson was awarded the Knesset’s Speaker’s Prize for quality of life. In 1986 she was awarded the Israel Prize for her pioneering work in adult education and in the teaching of spoken Hebrew and Arabic. Katznelson was nominated for the Nobel Prize twice, in 1992 and 1993. KATZSUCHY, JULIUSZ (1912–1971), Polish statesman. Born in Warsaw, Katz-Suchy joined the illegal Polish Communist Party and was the editor of several socialist publications between 1934 and 1938. He was forced to leave Poland in 1938 and made his way via Czechoslovakia to England. Katz-Suchy was the representative of the Polish Press Agency in London from 1940 to 1945 and after the war became press attaché at the Polish embassy there. Later he became department director of the Polish Foreign Ministry. From 1946 to 1951 and from 1953 to 1954 he was Poland’s delegate to the United Nations. Subsequently he was Poland’s representative to the European Economic Commission, representative to the International Conference of Atomic Energy (1955), and ambassador to India (1957–62). He was also director of the Polish Institute for International Affairs, and after his return from India, professor of international law at the University of Warsaw. During the antisemitic campaign in Poland following the *Six-Day War of 1967 he was removed from that position. In 1970 he went to Denmark to teach at the University of Aarhus. His brother was Benzion *Katz, rector of Tel Aviv University. [Abraham Wein]

was born in Bouxwiller, Alsace, in 1832 went to Frankfurt where he set up a bookshop. In 1850 he established the publishing house J. Kauffmann. The first book published by the firm was Buch vom rechten Lebenswandel (1850), his own translation of the ethical treatise of Zerahiah ha-Yevani Sefer ha-Yashar. Kauffmann published the works of S.R. *Hirsch, among others. Isaac’s son IGNATZ KAUFFMANN (1849–1913) succeeded to the direction of the firm; under his aegis it published for the first time works by adherents of the *Wissenschaft des Judentums, including Moritz *Steinschneider, Leopold *Zunz, Abraham *Geiger, Abraham *Berliner, and David *Kaufmann. In 1900 Ignatz Kauffmann took over the printing house of M. Lehrberger and Co., successor to Wolf *Heidenheim’s Hebrew publishing house. From 1909 to 1936 Ignatz’ son FELIX KAUFFMANN (d. 1953) directed the firm; in 1913 he became sole owner. He continued to publish works in all fields of modern Jewish scholarship, textbooks, juvenile literature, and books on Jewish art and music. Among important writers and scholars published in this later period were Hermann *Cohen, Leo *Baeck, and Franz *Rosenzweig. The 1936 catalog, the last of nearly 100 issued, contained close to 1,000 items published by the firm. Felix Kauffmann remained active in the book trade after his emigration to the United States in the Nazi era. Bibliography: Neue Juedische Monatshefte, 4 (1919), 69–77. Add. Bibliography: NDB, vol. 22 (2005), 68*.

KAUFFMANN, ISAAC (1805–1884), founder of the Kauffmann Jewish publishing house in Germany. Kauffmann, who

KAUFMAN, ANDY (1949–1984), U.S. comic actor. Andrew Geoffrey Kaufman was born in New York and grew up in suburban Long Island. He graduated in 1971 from the now defunct Grahm Junior College in Boston, where he studied television. Kaufman lived in a hazy borderland between comedy and performance art. After appearing on the inaugural telecast of Saturday Night Live in 1975, he became famous as a comedian who provoked nervous laughter, if any at all. He was believed to be the first person to publicly, and repeatedly, perform in the garb and persona of Elvis Presley, and his impersonation was believed to be a Presley favorite. His comedy act often caused his audience to become rowdy or to simply walk out in the middle of his show. He would read The Great Gatsby to the audience in its entirety, sing all verses of “100 Bottles of Beer on the Wall,” or impersonate a fictitious Las Vegas lounge singer named Tony Clifton. In 1978, Kaufman began playing the part of Latka Gravas on the ABC television network show Taxi. Latka was an immigrant auto mechanic in the taxi garage who spoke in a high-pitched accent that Kaufman concocted, and indulged in a bewildering array of personality changes. On Saturday Night Live, he affected what he called a Puerto Rican accent, recited nonsensical verse, and got the audience to imitate barnyard animals while he sang “Old MacDonald Had a Farm.” Kaufman outraged feminists with a character he called the Intergender World Wrestling Champion, in which guise Kaufman offered $1,000 to any woman who could pin him in a match. More than 60 women accepted the challenge,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

27

KAUDER, SAMUEL JUDAH BEN DAVID (Shmuel Loeb Kauders; 1766–1838), Bohemian rabbi. Born in *Bechyne, Bohemia, Kauder studied in the yeshivah of Eleazar Kallir in Kolin (where he made the acquaintance of Bezalel *Ranschburg, his lifelong friend and correspondent), and in Prague under Michael Bachrach. He settled in Prague where he officiated in the Altschul, and took an active part in the affairs of the ḥ evra kaddisha and other communal institutions. In 1817 he was appointed to the rabbinate of the district of Budweis and Tabor with his seat in Kalladay. In 1834 he succeeded Samuel *Landau in the post of Oberjurist (av bet din; chief rabbi de facto, but not in name) of Prague. He was the last native Bohemian to hold this position, and was succeeded by the Galician maskil S.L. *Rapoport. His son Moses succeeded him as rabbi of the Altschul. His published works are: Olat Shemu’el, consisting of 111 responsa to Oraḥ Ḥ ayyim (Prague, 1823); Ahavat Emet (part 1, 1828), 18 homilies and sermons; and appended to it Pe’ullat Emet, seven halakhic discourses; and Zikkaron ba-Sefer (1937), a short commentary on tractate Megillah. Bibliography: AZDJ, 2:72 (1838), 291f.; S.L. Kauder, Zikkaron ba-Sefer (1937), introduction by S.Z. Lieben; R. KestenbergGladstein, Neuere Geschichte der Juden in den boehmischen Laendern, 1 (1969), index. [Abraham Schischa]

kaufman, avraham yosifovich

and Kaufman claimed that he never lost, although he fought some to a draw. Kaufman suffered neck and back injuries in a bout with a professional male wrestler, Jerry Lawler, who was reportedly angered by Kaufman’s disparaging on-air remarks about “professional” wrestling, and challenged him. Kaufman died of lung cancer, although he was not a smoker, and countless fans doubted his death, thinking he had staged it as the ultimate Andy Kaufman stunt. In 1992 the actor Jim Carrey starred in a film about Kaufman, Man on the Moon. [Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

KAUFMAN, AVRAHAM YOSIFOVICH (1885–1971), Jewish public figure, head of Jewish communities in the Far East. He was born in Mglin, Chernigov province, into a family of Ḥ asidim and, on his mother’s side, he was great grandson of the founder of this movement, *Shneur Zalman of Lyady. In 1903 Kaufman graduated from high school in Perm where he became an enthusiastic Zionist. From 1904 to 1908, he studied medicine at Berne University in Switzerland where he was vice chairman of the Union of Jewish Students. In 1908 Kaufman returned to Russia where, at the initiative of Jehiel *Tschlenow, he visited the cities of the Volga and Ural regions to disseminate Zionism. He was a delegate to three Zionist Congresses. In 1912 Kaufman moved to *Harbin in Manchuria where he became involved in communal and Zionist activity. In late 1918 he was elected vice chairman of the National Council of Jews of Siberia and the Urals (the chairman was Moshe *Novomeysky). From 1919 to 1931 and 1933 to 1945 Kaufman was chairman of the Harbin Jewish community. During that period he was representative in China of the *Jewish National Fund and *Keren Hayesod, and official representative of the *World Zionist Organization and the *Jewish Agency, chairman of the Zionist Organization of China and head of almost all the cultural and social institutions of the Jews of Harbin. From 1921 to 1943 he was editor of the Russian language weekly Yevreyskaya zhizn (“Jewish Life”). At the same time he worked as chief physician at the Jewish hospital in Harbin which he had founded. From 1937 he was chairman of the National Council of Jews of East Asia (i.e., the Far East). Kaufman was a brilliant orator and publicist and was very knowledgeable about Judaism. He devoted considerable efforts to Jewish education. Recognized as the spiritual leader of Chinese Jewry, he staunchly opposed antisemitic tendencies among the Russian emigrés in Harbin which became particularly strong after the Japanese occupation of Manchuria in 1931. Due to his indefatigable energy and personal charm, he was able to establish direct contact with the Japanese authorities in Tokyo and succeeded in having countermanded the orders issued at Hitler’s urging for concentrating the Jews of China under Japanese occupation into camps specially established for that purpose. When the Soviet Army occupied Harbin in August 1945, Kaufman was among the many arrested and taken to the Soviet Union. He was accused of spying and Zionist activities

28

and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. He spent 11 years in confinement (three years in a solitary cell in Moscow and eight years in prison camp). He was released in 1956 with his criminal record erased and sent to Karaganda in Kazakhstan. During his five-year stay there he endeavored to reach Israel and succeeded in 1961. For the rest of his life he worked as a physician in an ambulatory care clinic in Ramat Gan. He also wrote his memoirs as well as a history of the Jewish communities in the Far East. He vividly described his life in the Soviet Union in his book Lagerniy vrach (“Camp Physician,” Hebrew, 1971; Russian, Tel Aviv, 1973). [The Shorter Jewish Encyclopaedia in Russian (2nd ed.)]

KAUFMAN, BEL (1911– ), U.S. author. Born in Berlin, Kaufman was the granddaughter of the Yiddish writer *Shalom Aleichem. Up the Down Staircase (1965), an amusing book based on her experiences as a teacher in New York City, was made into a motion picture. She also wrote short stories and published translations from the Russian. KAUFMAN, BORIS (1906–1980), motion picture cameraman. Kaufman was born in Bialystok, Poland. He immigrated to France in 1927, where he became the cameraman on all of Jean Vigo’s films, such as L’Atalante (1934), as well as those of other French directors. After serving in the French army, he went to New York in 1942. He worked for American war propaganda productions and became one of America’s foremost cameramen. Renowned for his exquisite black-and-white photography, Kaufman won an Academy Award and a Golden Globe in 1955 for Best Black/White Cinematography for On the Waterfront. Other films he worked on include Baby Doll (Oscar nomination for Best Cinematography, 1956), Twelve Angry Men (1957), The Fugitive Kind (1959), Splendor in the Grass (1961), Long Day’s Journey into Night (1962), The Pawnbroker (1964), The World of Henry Orient (1964), The Group (1966), Bye Bye Braverman (1968), The Brotherhood (1969), and Tell Me That You Love Me, Junie Moon (1970). Kaufman was the brother of Soviet directors Dziga Vertov (1896–1954) and Mikhail Kaufman (1897–1980). [Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

KAUFMAN, GEORGE SIMON (1889–1961), U.S. playwright and stage director. Born in Pittsburgh, Kaufman began his career as a journalist, but in 1918 turned to writing for the stage. His name is linked with over 30 hits, almost all his plays having been written in collaboration with others, such as Marc Connelly, Edna Ferber, Morrie Ryskind, and Moss Hart. For each year from 1921 to 1941, Kaufman, as either writer or director, had at least one hit Broadway show. He was an acknowledged master of stage technique and comedy, and plays such as Once in a Lifetime (1930), You Can’t Take it With You (1937, Pulitzer Prize), and The Man Who Came to Dinner (1939) have found their way into many anthologies. In 1946 he wrote his dramatic version of The Late George Apley, the novel by J.P. Marquand, an admirable example of his skill in adapting from one artisENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kaufman, joyce jacobson

tic medium to another. Kaufman’s versatility was shown in the musicals The Coconuts (1925) and Animal Crackers (1928), written for the Marx Brothers; Strike up the Band (1930); The Band Wagon (1931); and Of Thee I Sing (1932, Pulitzer Prize). Perhaps his most serious play, inspired by the prejudices and hatreds of the Hitler era, was The American Way (1939). Other successes by Kaufman include Dinner at Eight (1932), Stage Door (1936), George Washington Slept Here (1940), and The Solid Gold Cadillac (1951). He directed such stage hits as Front Page (1928), Of Mice and Men (1937), and Guys and Dolls (1950). Kaufman’s early experience as a columnist and as a dramatic critic on New York newspapers developed his sensitivity to language and the demands of the theater. His plays made exciting entertainment and his satirical flashes poked fun at weaknesses in American life.

KAUFMAN, SIR GERALD (1930– ), British politician. Originally a journalist, Kaufman served as a staff writer for the London Daily Mirror (1955–64) and the New Statesman (1964–65) as well as parliamentary press officer for the Labour Party (1965–70) before becoming a Labour Member of Parliament for a Manchester seat in 1970. He held junior ministerial posts in Labour’s 1974–79 government. During Labour’s long period in opposition (1979–97) Kaufman held senior posts in the shadow cabinet and was shadow home secretary (1983–87) and shadow foreign secretary (1987–92). Originally on the left of the party, in the 1980s he was increasingly attacked by Labour’s militant extreme left. In latter years Kaufman was outspokenly critical of Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians, especially after the fall of the Barak government, for which he was heavily criticized by the Manchester Jewish community. Kaufman was also one of the leading critics of the “dumbing down” of the BBC, and is the author or editor of several books. A backbench member of Parliament since Labour’s return to power in 1997, he was recognized as a respected elder statesman and received a knighthood in 2004.

judge of the Manhattan circuit court for seven years, from 1973 to 1980. Formally retiring in 1987, he was designated a senior judge and remained active on the court until the illness that preceded his death in 1992. Much to Kaufman’s frustration, his reputation was forever linked to the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1951. The Rosenbergs, charged with espionage for conspiring to deliver nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, were found guilty. Kaufman sentenced them to death in the electric chair, calling their crime “worse than murder.” Despite a worldwide campaign on their behalf, seven appeals of the verdict were denied, and two pleas for executive clemency (first to President Harry S. Truman in 1952 and then to President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953) were dismissed. On June 19, 1953, the Rosenbergs became the first American civilians to be put to death for espionage in the United States. Even after their death, debate about the case continued. Some contended that the conviction and sentence were influenced by the wave of antiCommunism fostered by Senator Joseph McCarthy and the House Un-American Activities Committee. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) documents released in the 1970s disclosed that Judge Kaufman had conducted private discussions about the sentence with the prosecution and that he had called the FBI to request that the executions be expedited. Though discussions with one side in a case under trial are usually considered a violation of judicial ethics, a subcommittee of the American Bar Association exonerated Kaufman, reporting that the FBI memos did not cast doubt on the propriety of the proceedings or the judge’s conduct. Kaufman’s subsequent judicial career was marked by liberal rulings. Kaufman issued the first judicial order to desegregate an elementary school in the North in Taylor v. Board of Education (1961). In 1971 he was the lone dissenter in the case of United States v. The New York Times, when the court ruled not to allow publication of the Pentagon Papers; the Supreme Court later overturned that ruling. Many of his decisions involved First Amendment rights, including Edwards v. The National Audubon Society (1977), Herbert v. Lando (1977), and Reeves v. ABC (1983). His widely cited decision in Berkey v. Kodak (1979) is considered a landmark in antitrust law. In 1983 Kaufman was appointed chairman of the President’s Commission on Organized Crime, and he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1987.

[William D. Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]

[Dorothy Bauhoff (2nd ed.)]

KAUFMAN, IRVING R. (1910–1992), U.S. judge who presided over the trial of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Born in New York City, Kaufman was educated at Fordham University, graduating from Fordham Law School in 1931 at the age of 20. He worked in the law offices of Louis Rosenberg (who was not related to Julius Rosenberg), and afterward as an assistant United States attorney. In 1949 he was appointed a judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York; President John F. Kennedy appointed him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1961. Kaufman was chief

KAUFMAN, JOYCE JACOBSON (1929– ), U.S. chemist. Born in New York City but raised and educated in Baltimore, Maryland, Kaufman earned her B.S. with honors in chemistry from Johns Hopkins University in 1949, soon after her marriage to Stanley Kaufman, an engineer. After graduation, she worked as a technical librarian and then a research chemist at the Army Chemical Center before returning to Johns Hopkins in 1952 as a researcher in the physical chemistry lab of her former professor, Walter S. Koski, who was later to become her second husband. With Koski as her advisor and mentor,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

29

Bibliography: J.M. Brown, Broadway in Review (1940), 88–94, 169–76; idem, Seeing Things (1946), 205–11; E.M. Gagey, Revolution in American Drama (1947), 217–20; J. Mersand, Traditions in American Literature (1939), 14–24; A.H. Quinn, History of the American Drama, 2 (1937), 220–5. Add. Bibliography: S. Meredith, George S. Kaufman and His Friends (1975). [Joseph Mersand / Robert L. DelBane (2nd ed.)]

Kaufman, Philip

she received her M.A. in 1959 and then her Ph.D. in physical chemistry in 1960. In 1962, accompanied by her mother and her young daughter, she went to Paris, where she became a visiting scientist, receiving a doctoral degree in theoretical physics from the Sorbonne the following year. After working in industry as a staff scientist and later as leader of the quantum chemistry group at the Research Institute for Advanced Studies of the Martin Marietta Company, Kaufman rejoined Koski’s research group at Johns Hopkins as a principal research scientist, a position which she held until her retirement. She also held a joint appointment in the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine as associate professor of anesthesiology and later of plastic surgery, but she never received tenure or promotion to full professor, perhaps due to discrimination against her as a woman. In addition to working with doctoral students, postdoctoral associates, and visiting scientists, she also served as mentor to many undergraduates. The author of more than 300 scientific publications, Kaufman conducted groundbreaking research in a variety of fields, including pharmacology, drug design, theoretical quantum chemistry, experimental physical chemistry, chemical physics of energetic compounds, biochemical research, and superconductors. She served on numerous editorial advisory boards for scientific books and journals and as consultant to many scientific organizations. In 1965 Kaufman was elected fellow of the American Institute of Chemists and, the following year, of the American Physical Society; in 1969, she was named Dame Chevalière de France; in 1973, she received the Garvan Medical Award of the American Chemical Society; and in 1981, she was elected corresponding member of the European Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters. In 1974, the Jewish National Fund honored her with a Woman of Achievement Award as one of the ten outstanding women in Maryland. Her daughter, JAN CARYL KAUFMAN (1955– ), was one of the first three women admitted to the Conservative rabbinate.

Hassidim. For it, Goldstein shared the Prix de La Nouvelle Critique at the Cannes Film Festival. Fearless Frank (1967), which he wrote and directed, failed to find a distributor until its star, Jon Voight, became an overnight success with Midnight Cowboy (1969), earning Kaufman an invitation to the Universal Studios Young Directors Program. His first film for Universal was The Great Northfield Minnesota Raid, (1972), followed by an adaptation of the James Houston novel, The White Dawn (1974) for Paramount. Kaufman co-wrote the script for and agreed to direct Clint Eastwood in The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), but two weeks into the film Eastwood took over the direction. Kaufman’s remake of Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), however, became a huge hit. He followed this up with a successful adaptation of Richard Price’s The Wanderers (1979), a writing credit for Raiders of the Lost Ark (1983), and a major critical success in adapting and directing Tom Wolfe’s bestselling book about the U.S. space program, The Right Stuff (1983). In 1988, Kaufman received an adapted screenplay Oscar nomination for his work on Milan Kundera’s The Unbearable Lightness of Being. His next film, Henry and June (1990), a film about the erotic relationship of Anaïs Nin and Henry Miller, was the first film to earn the MPAA’s NC-17 rating. Kaufman’s later work included an adaptation of the Michael Crichton book Rising Sun (1993); Quills (2000), a tale about the notorious French writer Marquis de Sade; and Twisted (2004), a police thriller set in San Francisco. [Adam Wills (2nd ed.)]

KAUFMAN, PHILIP (1936– ), U.S. director-screenwriter. Born in Chicago, Ill., Kaufman graduated from the University of Chicago in 1958 with honors and returned a year later after leaving Harvard Law School to complete a master’s degree in history. Kaufman married screenwriter Rose Fisher in 1959. In 1960, he moved to San Francisco and then to Europe, where he taught in Greece and Italy, and then to work on an Israeli kibbutz while attempting to write a novel. In 1962, Kaufman and his family returned to Chicago, where his unpublished novel, with the help of Benjamin Manaster, became the film Goldstein (1965), loosely based on one of Martin Buber’s Tales of the

KAUFMANN, DAVID (1852–1899), Austrian scholar. Kaufmann was born in Kojetein, Moravia, and received his first instruction in Talmud from Jakob *Bruell. From 1867 to 1877 he attended the rabbinical seminary in Breslau and also studied at the university there. In 1874 he received his doctorate at Leipzig, for a dissertation concerning Sa’adiah’s philosophy of religion, which he subsequently published as a part of his Attributenlehre (1877; repr. 1967, 1982). He began teaching Jewish history, religious philosophy, and homiletics at the new rabbinical seminary in Budapest, where he remained until his death. Kaufmann was a scholar of unusually wide and thorough knowledge and produced an astonishingly large number of works in his short life – almost 30 books and over 500 smaller essays and book reviews. His work was distinguished also for its literary style. A complete bibliography was compiled by M. Brann, in Gedenkbuch zur Erinnerung an David Kaufmann (ed. M. Brann and F. Rosenthal, 1900; repr. 1980). Though Kaufmann dealt with every area of Jewish scholarship, he contributed especially to history, medieval Jewish philosophy, history of religion, and the history of Jewish art. His most important works are: “Die Theologie des Bachia Ibn Pakuda” (in Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1874); Geschichte der Attributenlehre in der juedischen Religionsphilosophie des Mittelalters von Sa’adja bis Maimuni (1877; repr. 1967, 1982), Kaufmann’s major work; Jehuda Halevy. Versuch einer Charakteristik (1877); and Die Spuren al-Bat-

30

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: P.E. Hyman and D.D. Moore (eds.), Jewish Women in America, I (1997), 729–30; W.S. Koski, “Joyce Jacobson Kaufman (1929– ),” in: L.S. Grinstein et al. (eds.), Women in Chemistry and Physics: A Biobibliographic Sourcebook (1993), 299–313; B.F. Shearer and B.S. Shearer (eds.), Notable Women in the Physical Sciences: A Biographical Dictionary (1997), 223–27. [Harriet Pass Freidenreich (2nd ed.)]

kaufmann, fritz mordecai

lajusi’s in der juedischen Religionsphilosophie (in Jahresbericht der Landes-Rabbinerschule in Budapest, 3, 1880; also in Hungarian; repr. 1967). Kaufmann’s comprehensive schooling in the natural sciences and philology is attested by his study Die Sinne; Beitraege zur Geschichte der Physiologie und Psychologie im Mittelalter aus hebraeischen und arabischen Quellen (ibid., 7, 1884; repr. 1972, 1980). To the last year of his life belongs his Studien ueber Salomon Ibn Gabirol (1899; repr. 1972, 1980). His historical and genealogical monographs include Samson Wertheimer, der Oberhoffaktor und Landesrabbiner 1658–1724 und seine Kinder (1888), Urkundliches aus dem Leben Samson Wertheimers (1891), and R. Jair Chajjim Bacharach (1638–1702) und seine Ahnen (1894). Die letzte Vertreibung der Juden aus Wien und Niederoesterreich, ihre Vorgeschichte (1625 bis 1670) und ihre Opfer (1889), and Die Erstuermung Ofens und ihre Vorgeschichte nach dem Berichte Isaak Schulhofs (1650–1732) (1895), together with Megillat Ofen, deal with the history of the Jews in the Austrian and Hungarian capitals. The history of the Italian Jews is dealt with, among others, in Dr. Israel Conegliano und seine Verdienste um die Republik Venedig bis nach dem Frieden von Carlowitz (1895) and Die Chronik des Achimaaz von Oria (1896). David Kaufmann edited the autobiography (zikhronot) of Glueckel von Hameln in its original Yiddish version (1896), which is considered one of the most valuable sources for the history of the Jews in Early Modern Times. In the last years of his life, Kaufmann turned to investigations in the history of Jewish art, in which field he was a pioneer. He co-founded the Gesellschaft fuer Sammlung und Konservierung von Kunst- und historischen Denkmaelern des Judentums in Wien. Kaufmann took an active stand against attacks on the Jewish community and the Jewish religion. To this category of writings belong Paul de Lagarde’s juedische Gelehrsamkeit; eine Erwiderung (1887), in which Kaufmann indicates Lagarde’s gross errors in the field of Jewish studies, and particularly rejects the derogatory manner in which this German Orientalist had spoken of the accomplishments of Zunz and other Jewish scholars, and Ein Wort im Vertrauen an Herrn Hofprediger Stoecker (1880). On the other hand, Kaufmann wrote an enthusiastic review of Daniel Deronda by George Eliot, in which the concept of national Judaism is extolled (in mgwj, 26, 1877) In association with M. Brann, Kaufmann published the new series of the Monatsschrift fuer Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums (1892–99) and cooperated on this and many other Jewish scholarly and Oriental publications. M. Brann published a selection of Kaufmann’s essays and shorter writings in three volumes, David Kaufmann, Gesammelte Schriften (1908–15; repr. 1980). A collection of his essays appeared in Hebrew translation, Meḥ karim ba-Sifrut ha-Ivrit shel Yemei ha-Beinayim (1962). Kaufmann’s rich library (cataloged by M. Weisz, 1906), which contained many valuable manuscripts, incunabula, and genizah fragments, is now owned by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (see Microcard Catalogue of the Rare Hebrew Codices… in the Kaufmann Collection (1959), with an introduction by Ignaz *Goldziher).

Bibliography: F. Rosenthal, in: M. Brann and F. Rosenthal (eds.), Gedenkbuch… David Kaufmann (1900), i–lxxxvii, biography and bibl.; M. Klein, ibid., 667–74; M. Brann, in: D. Kaufmann, Gesammelte Schriften (1908), ix–xii; S. Krauss, David Kaufmann (Ger., 1901); R. Brainin, in: Sefer ha-Shanah, 1 (1900), 186–96; S.A. Horodezky, in: Ha-Goren, 2 (1900), 119–20; D.H. Mueller, in: jjgl, 3 (1900), 196–206; Jahresbericht der Landes-Rabbinerschule in Budapest, 22 (1899); Révai Nagy Lexikona, 11 (1914), 365; Magyar Zsidó Lexikon (1929), 456; A. Scheiber, The Kaufmann Haggadah (1957); S. Loewinger and A. Scheiber (eds.), Genizah Publications in Memory of Prof. Dr. David Kaufmann, 1 (1949), Eng. and Heb. Add. Bibliography: M. Carmilly-Weinberger (ed.), The Rabbinical Seminary of Budapest 1877–1977 (1986), Eng. and Heb.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

31

[Moshe Nahum Zobel]

KAUFMANN, FELIX (1895–1949), philosopher and methodologist. Kaufmann, who was born in Vienna, immigrated to the U.S. when the Nazis took over Austria in 1938. From then until his death he was a member of the graduate faculty at the New School for Social Research in New York City. Although Kaufmann was greatly influenced by Moritz Schlick, and was himself involved in the early discussions of the Vienna Circle, he never rigidly adopted the main principles of logical positivism. This was perhaps more a matter of interest than ideology, his main concerns being to discriminate between the methodology of the social sciences, and the methodology of the physical sciences. His view was that the rules which social scientists adopt differ both in their purposes and in their applications from those found in the physical sciences, especially being directed toward the clarification of knowledge rather than its acquisition. His most important book in this connection is Methodenlehre der Sozialwissenschaften (1936), translated in 1944 into English as Methodology of the Social Sciences. [Avrum Stroll]

KAUFMANN, FRITZ (1891–1958), philosopher. He was born in Leipzig, became *Husserl’s assistant at Freiburg, remaining there until 1936, when he joined the Hochschule fuer die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin. He left Nazi Germany for America, where he taught at Northwestern University and the University of Buffalo. He was a leading exponent of Husserl’s phenomenology, which he helped to make known in the United States, and wrote extensively on phenomenology, aesthetics, and literary themes. His major works are Die Philosophie des Grafen Paul Yorck von Wartenburg (1928); a posthumous volume, Das Reich des Schoenen – Bausteine zu einer Philosophie der Kunst (1960); and articles on Buber, Cassirer, Thomas Mann, Nietzsche, Rilke, Goethe, Flaubert, and Husserl. [Richard H. Popkin]

KAUFMANN, FRITZ MORDECAI (1888–1921), German essayist and writer on Yiddish culture. Born in Eschweiler, Kaufmann studied medicine and history in Geneva, Munich and Leipzig. He joined a Zionist student group in Leipzig and came into contact with East European Jews. Their cul-

kaufmann, hanne

ture fascinated him and he began to study Yiddish. Here, he also came to know Nathan *Birnbaum, and was profoundly influenced by the latter’s zeal for the organic culture of unassimilated Jewry, however much more with its socialistic aspects than Birnbaum’s new-Orthodox tendency. Kaufmann’s first essays appeared in the Juedische Rundschau in 1912. In the following year, moving to Berlin, he founded his own periodical, Die Freistatt (1913–14), which he symbolically subtitled Alljuedische Revue, thus affirming his faith in Jewish national unity, however, herein following Birnbaum, not in his Zionist sense. Although he accepted Jewish nationalism, Kaufmann opposed Zionism’s emphasis on Palestine and its negation of the Diaspora. He believed in Alljudentum, the strengthening of Jewish culture everywhere, especially in the Yiddish-speaking communities. There, in his opinion, Jewish life had not degenerated as it had among the Central and Western European intellectuals who had lost their Jewish roots. Kaufmann sought particularly to instill in his Western-Jewish readers a love for the Eastern-Jewish culture, i.e. Yiddish language, literature, folklore, and customs. After having served as an officer in the war and being disabled by typhus in 1915, he resumed writing for the Jewish press in 1916, specifying this position. Some of his essays were published after the war in Vier Essais ueber ostjuedische Dichtung und Kultur (1919) and in the collection Die Einwanderung der Ostjuden (1920). He also published the pamphlet Das juedische Volkslied (1919) and the anthology Die schoensten Lieder der Ostjuden (1920) while working as secretary general of the Arbeiterfürsorgeamt der jüdischen Organisationen Deutschlands. He also began a German translation of the Yiddish works of Mendele Mokher Seforim, but committed suicide before it was completed. Bibliography: F.M. Kaufmann, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. by L. Strauss (1923), 7–20 (incl. bibl.). Add. Bibliography: M. Flohr, Fritz Mordechai Kaufmann und ‘Die Freistatt’ (2006). [Sol Liptzin / Andreas Kilcher (2nd ed.)]

KAUFMANN, HANNE (1926–1997), Danish author. Born in Frankfurt, she was taken by her family to Denmark in 1933 and ten years later found temporary refuge in Sweden as a result of Danish rescue operations. Her works, which reflect her experience of these events, include Kathedral (1964), on the Holocaust, and Hvorfor er denne nat anderledes end alle andre naetter? (“Why is this Night Different from All Other Nights?,” 1968), on the flight to Sweden. In 1970 she wrote her book Alle disse skæbner about the Polish refugees who fled to Denmark during this period.

covering the shtetl. He traveled in Galicia, Poland, and the Ukraine from one village to another, making sketches. He had a meteoric career. Emperor Franz Josef bought The Rabbi’s Visit and presented it to Vienna’s Museum of Fine Art. Honors were bestowed upon the artist by the German emperor, and even the Russian czar. After his death his reputation declined. Kaufmann did not intend to open up new avenues of aesthetic perception; rather he wanted to tell stories or illustrate subjects of everyday Jewish life. His small genre paintings have definite charm, and his numerous portraits were executed with taste and skill. At the same time, his pictures are of considerable historical value, as they document the folkloristic aspects of the shtetl, and the shtibl (small synagogue) with ritual objects. Beyond this, he can be appreciated as a cultured observer who, with his sensitive brush, sought to reproduce every nuance of the people and objects he portrayed. His son PHILIP KAUFMANN (1888–1969), who emigrated from Vienna to England in 1938, also achieved a reputation as a painter. Bibliography: Kunta, in: Ost und West, 3 (1903), 590–603, includes plates; H. Menkes, Isidor Kaufmann; A Painter of Jewish Life (1925); A. Wiener in: Jewish Chronicle Literary Supplement, Dec. 4, 1970. [Alfred Werner]

KAUFMANN, OSKAR (1873–1956), German theatrical architect, born in Neu St. Anna/Pancota, now Romania. He studied music in Budapest and architecture in Karlsruhe. In 1900 he settled in Berlin and built the Hebbel Theater (1907), the Stadttheater and Museum, Bremerhaven (1909), the Volksbuehne (1914), the Kroll Opera (1923), the Komoedie Theater (1924), and the Renaissance theaters (1927). Kaufmann played an important part in creating the design of the modern theater. He believed that a theater should reflect the social status of its users. Thus the proletarian Volksbuehne was decorated with wood paneling, while the fashionable Komoedie has delicately colored frescoes. He immigrated in 1933 to Palestine and built the Hebrew theater Habimah. Bibliography: A. Hansen, “The Theatre Architect Oskar Kaufmann,” in: Assaph, Section B (Studies in Art History), 8 (2003), 149–70. [Bjoern Siegel (2d ed.)]

KAUFMANN, ISIDOR (1853–1921), Hungarian painter. He was born in Arad, Hungary. At 14 he started to work and in the evening he drew, decorating his room with his own pictures. A head of Moses, displayed in his uncle’s store, attracted the attention of connoisseurs who arranged for the young man to study art, first in Budapest, and then in Vienna. Kaufmann’s earliest works – historical paintings – are of no real importance. He achieved originality and strength only after dis-

KAUFMANN, RICHARD (1877–1958), Israeli architect. Kaufmann was born in Frankfurt and studied in Munich. He worked as an architect and town planner in Germany and Norway before settling in Palestine in 1920. There he entered the service of the Zionist Executive. A large proportion of the agricultural settlements established from the early 1920s were built according to his plans, and he laid down the general design of cooperative agricultural settlements (moshavim). In Nahalal, he created an architectural model for the *moshav ovedim. Kaufmann also designed many urban settlements and neighborhoods, including Afulah, Kiryat Ḥ ayyim near Haifa, and Reḥ avyah, Talpiot, and Bet ha-Kerem in Jerusalem. He built many apartment houses in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, and also at the Dead Sea Works and in the Jordan Valley. These

32

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kaufmann, yeḤ ezkel

last two undertakings were noteworthy for their efficient solutions to cooling problems in the difficult climate of these areas. He was one of the first modern architects in Palestine, and in his buildings achieved the new aims of European architecture of the 1920s. Bibliography: Roth, Art, 741. [Abraham Erlik]

KAUFMANN, WALTER (1921–1980), U.S. philosopher. Born in Freiburg, Germany, Kaufmann was raised as a Lutheran but returned to Judaism. He went to the U.S. in 1939 and studied at Williams College and Harvard University, where he received his B.A. from the former (1941) and his Ph.D. from the latter (1947). From 1944 to 1946, he served in the United States Army Air Forces and Military Intelligence Service. Kaufmann began teaching philosophy at Princeton in 1947 and became a full professor in 1962. He remained at Princeton throughout his career. His main interests were philosophy of religion, social philosophy, and the history of ideas since the 19t century. Kaufmann was a vigorous opponent of arguments for religion. He made an attack on theology of all kinds and favored a naturalistic, humanistic approach. His best-known writings include Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Anti-Christ (1950), Critique of Religion and Philosophy (1958), The Owl and the Nightingale: From Shakespeare to Existentialism (1959), The Faith of a Heretic (1961), Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts and Commentary (1965), Tragedy and Philosophy (1968), Religions in Four Dimensions (1976), Man’s Lot (3 vols., 1979), and Discovering the Mind (Trilogy, 1980). He translated (with R.J. Hollingdale) Nietzsche’s Will to Power (1967), as well as several of his other works. He also translated Goethe’s Faust and Martin Buber’s I and Thou. His Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre (1956), a selection of texts which he edited and introduced, helped popularize existentialist philosophy in the United States.

under the title The Religion of Israel (1960). The beginning of volume 8 was translated into English by C.W. Efroymson under the title The Babylonian Captivity and Deutero-Isaiah (1970). His other works include: Ha-Sippur ha-Mikra’i al Kibbush ha-Areẓ (1956), of which an English version had been published previously (The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine, 1953); Be-Ḥ evlei ha-Zeman (1936), “In Troubled Times,” a collection of articles and studies on contemporary problems; commentaries on the Book of Joshua (1959) and the Book of Judges (1962); and Mi-Kivshonah shel ha-Yeẓ irah ha-Mikra’it (1966), “From the Crucible of Biblical Creativity,” a posthumous collection of studies on the Bible. His essay on “The Biblical Age” appeared in Great Ages and Ideas of the Jewish People (edited by L.W. Schwarz, 1956).

KAUFMANN, YEḤ EZKEL (1889–1963), biblical scholar, thinker, and essayist. Born in the Podolia region of the Ukraine, Kaufmann studied in the modern yeshivah of Ch. *Tchernowitz (Rav Ẓ a’ir) in Odessa and at the advanced courses of Baron David Guenzburg in Petrograd (Leningrad). He received a Ph.D. from the University of Berne in 1918. After World War I he lived in Berlin, where he began to work on his scholarly writings. In 1928 he migrated to Ereẓ Israel and taught in the Re’ali School in Haifa. In 1949 he was appointed professor of Bible at the Hebrew University, a post he held until his death. Of his many writings, two monumental works stand out: Golah ve-Nekhar, “Exile and the Alien Land” (4 vols. in 2, 1929–30), a sociological study on the fate of the Jewish people from ancient times to the modern period; and Toledot ha-Emunah ha-Yisre’elit, “The History of Israelite Faith” (8 vols. in 4, 1937–57), a history of Israelite religion from ancient times to the end of the Second Temple. The first seven volumes were condensed and translated into English by M. Greenberg

Biblical Period Kaufmann’s main contribution to the study of biblical religion was his thesis that Israel’s monotheism was not a gradual evolutionary development from paganism but an entirely new beginning, sui generis, in religious history. From its beginnings, Kaufmann asserted, the Israelite monotheistic structure was devoid of any element of polytheistic mythology. Kaufmann claimed that nowhere in the Bible is there any trace of mythical elements – no battles among gods or birth of gods – and that theogony is totally absent. He suggested that this is due to the fact that the battle with myth had been waged and won long before the Bible was compiled. Israelite monotheism for Kaufmann began with Moses. To bridge the gap between the concept of the one God of all humankind, on the one hand, and on the other, the fact that God’s grace and works were known for 1,000 years only to Israel, Kaufmann developed the principle of theoretical (or ideational) universalism. So long as Israel was in its native land, this was expressed in the wish that all nations would some day acknowledge the one God, just as, according to Genesis, all humankind in the beginning knew only one God. In the exilic period, Israel began to move the monotheistic teaching beyond its territorial borders. On Kaufmann’s reading, the Bible was so fundamentally the product of a monotheistic world view that it claimed that all humans were originally monotheistic; it was human rebelliousness that produced the religious retrogression of paganism. Kaufmann went so far as to argue that Israelites of the biblical period had no understanding of polytheism. Ancient Israelites did not even know how to worship gods other than Yahweh and assumed that their neighbors worshipped fetishes of wood and stone. Most Bible scholars, in the main Protestant, tended to paraphrase the biblical accounts of Israelite idolatry, and conclude that there was a vast difference between the official religion, which was either monolatrous or monotheistic, and the popular religion, which was polytheistic. In contrast, Kaufmann maintained that there was no fundamental difference between “popular” and “official” religion with regard to monotheism. The prophetic denunciations of Israelite “idolatry” were the rhetoric of zealots who equated low-level

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

33

[Richard H. Popkin / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

kaufmann, yeḤ ezkel

superstition with full-blown apostasy from Yahweh. Much of the prophetic critique, argued Kaufmann, was due to the demands of theodicy; the prophets needed to account for Israel’s frequent reversals. What were in reality minor superstitious lapses were transformed by the prophets into apostasy. Kaufmann’s general approach to the Bible was conservative. Although he accepted the Documentary Hypothesis of the sources of the Penateuch and the multiple authorship of Isaiah and Hosea, he resisted the tendency to analyze books into increasingly smaller units. In a similar vein, he maintained that the Book of Joshua provides an accurate account of the conquest of the land. The banishment of the Canaanites was not a nationalist necessity but a religious one, whose purpose was the purification of the land that was to serve as the locale for Israel’s monotheism. For Kaufmann, Isaiah is a watershed in the prophetic tradition. He is the creator of visionary universalism, which envisages the end of paganism and the establishment of eternal peace. According to Isaiah, Israel’s “chosenness” as the bearer of monotheism will then disappear and God’s name will be acknowledged by all. Jeremiah brought this concept to its logical conclusion by stressing that idolatry was a sin for nations as well as for individuals. Whereas Isaiah prophesied that “a man” would cast away his gold and silver idols (Isa. 2:20), Jeremiah said that “the nations shall come from the ends of the earth” to worship the one God (Jer. 16:19). With the preaching of Deutero-Isaiah monotheism came to the gentiles. Because Kaufmann wrote in Ivrit (Modern Israeli Hebrew) at a time when few gentile scholars were competent in the language, Kaufmann’s influence was largely confined to Israelis and Jewish religious moderates. (He was too radical for Jewish fundamentalists.) One reason for Kaufmann’s popularity in these circles was his early dating of the Priestly Code (P). In the classic scheme of *Graf and *Wellhausen, the post-exilic P had encased monotheism in a legalism leading finally to a Pharisaic notion of salvation through works, so stifling that it required no less a figure than Jesus to overturn it. Naturally, most Jews regarded this analysis as Christian suppressionism in scholarly garb. Tacitly accepting the Wellhausenian claim that earlier was better, Kaufmann attempted to demonstrate that P was pre-exilic in origin, rather than the product of later debased Jewish legalism. Another reason for Kaufmann’s popularity among Jewish religious moderates was that although Kaufmann was a secularist, his argument that monotheism was an original Israelite institution that had originated with Moses could be read as an empirical validation of the theological assertion of divine revelation. Through the efforts of H.L.*Ginsberg and Moshe *Greenberg, Kaufmann’s work was very influential at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America (JTS) in New York City, a religiously moderate institution, at which several generations of Jewish Bible scholars were introduced to the serious study of the Bible. Oddly, Kaufmann was never invited to teach or lecture there (Schorsch). [Emanuel Green / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]

34

Post-Biblical Period About the time of the Hasmonean era Judaism created a proselytization ceremony that was unique in the ancient world. It was a revolutionary innovation that obliterated all racial distinctions and converted the foreigner as if he were born a Jew in every respect. Religious conversion is one of the great revelations of Judaism as a universal, supra-racial religion. The movement for conversion was especially strengthened during the Hasmonean period, when the monotheistic nation attained statehood and served as a powerful instrument of Jewish religious propaganda. During that era Judaism spread by means of religious conversion to all parts of the known world to which Jews came. Kaufmann says that had Israel succeeded in maintaining a large state, its faith would have spread among many peoples, to such an extent that the Jewish people would have later become absorbed among the Judaized masses. Its subsequent political weakness and decadence, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, and the exile, prevented this from happening. The other nations were unable to accept the faith of a subjugated people. After cutting themselves off from Judaism, Christianity and Islam continued the Jewish mission of eradicating idolatry. Kaufmann regarded Christianity as a monotheistic religion in which a revolutionary change occurred, in contrast to the Eastern mystery religions and Hellenistic paganism. Judaism rejected the new sacred symbols of Christianity concerning the status of Jesus as a redeemer, messiah, and son of God. Jesus and Muhammad were rejected as bearers of divine revelation, and with them everything connected with their name. “The quarrel between Judaism and Christianity and Islam is a quarrel of covenants” (“Golah ve-Nekhar,” pt. I, 322). Israel persisted in its national religious stance and alone preserved the inherited religion of its ancestors. Kaufmann saw Judaism as the enemy of Greek paganism and science; the war of Judaism with idolatry was also a war against intellectual idolatry, against the belief that intellectual knowledge will redeem man. Man will be redeemed only by moral goodness and not by intellectual power. Judaism believes that man holds the key of his redemption in his own hands. The prophetic answer has not become dated. The hope of man lies in the prophetic pathos and the light of Isaiah’s vision. Kaufmann’s basic conception is that individual Israelites can become assimilated, but that the fundamental conclusion to be drawn from the whole of Jewish history is that the Jewish people will continue to exist. “The battle of the exile will not cease,” however, “and in consequence the Jewish nation cannot achieve redemption from its exile by assimilation among other peoples. The end of being an alien and of the battle of the exile can only come through national redemption, by the conquest of the national heritage” (ibid. II, 264). Kaufmann stressed that the Jewish people always preferred to live in ghettos in the midst of existing towns and countries and did not, in the course of its history, seek to obtain a national territory. Kaufmann, who wrote his book in Berlin, in the 1920s, ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kaunas

believed that, in addition to rebuilding Ereẓ Israel, its ancient birthplace, the Jewish people should establish for itself additional territory in one of the empty spaces of the world. Research into the problem of the exile and the alien condition of Israel, coupled with analysis of problems of the past and the present, gave Kaufmann the status of an outstanding researcher in the sociology and thought of Judaism. In his effort to prove his outlook on the history of Israel as a monotheistic people, with its beginning in the time of Moses, Kaufmann shed light upon all the sectors and accomplishments of the book of the Bible.

affiliation, counted among its clients the Mauser rifle factory, a leading German arms manufacturer. When negotiating contracts for the Ottoman army he became interested in Turkish railway projects including the Baghdad railway and was successful in securing the participation of the Deutsche Bank in that famous plan.

[Haim M.I. Gevaryahu]

KAULLA, family of German Court Jews and bankers. The family became prominent with CHAILA (CAROLINE) RAPHAEL KAULLA (1739–1809) who, as “Madame Kaulla,” was one of the few woman court agents in German principalities. Born in Buchau, Wuerttemberg, she married Akiba Auerbach in 1757, a Jewish scholar who left business activities to his wife. She served the princes of Donaueschingen, Hechingen, and Wuerttemberg, as well as the Imperial Court in Vienna, as a banker, jeweler, and army contractor. Her brother, JACOB RAPHAEL KAULLA (c. 1750–1810), who was also born in Buchau, a court banker, was among the members of the Kaulla family who were granted citizenship rights in Wuerttemberg by King Frederick for their services to the country in critical periods. The family later settled in Stuttgart. During the first decade of the 19t century the Kaullas were said to be financially stronger than most contemporary German-Jewish banking houses. Their most significant achievement was the 1802 establishment, in cooperation with the Duke of Wuerttemberg, of the Wuerttembergische Hofbank which, until the arrival of modern corporate banking, was the country’s leading credit institution; it was eventually absorbed by the Deutsche Bank. The family contributed generously to Jewish and general community projects. JOSEPH WOLF KAULLA (1805–1876), Madame Kaulla’s grandson, was ennobled in 1841 by the prince of Hechingen after the king of Wuerttemberg had refused a request to that effect. Among the Kaullas were a number of high-ranking economic and financial officials; many of them left the Jewish faith. ALFRED VON KAULLA (1833–1899), manager of the Wuerttembergische Vereinsbank, another Kaulla

KAUNAS (Pol. Kowno; Rus. Kovno; Ger. under Nazi occupation, Kauen), city in Lithuania situated at the confluence of the rivers Viliya and Neman. Formerly in Poland-Lithuania, it passed to Russia in 1795, was occupied by Germany in World War I (1915–18), and became capital of the independent Lithuanian Republic from 1920 to 1939. In World War II it was under Soviet rule from June 1940 to June 1941 and subsequently under Nazi occupation to July 1944. Jews took part in the trade between Kaunas and Danzig in the 16t century. Their competition aroused opposition from the Christian merchants, and through their influence Jews were prohibited from Kaunas on numerous occasions. However, the ban was not strictly enforced, and gradually a small group of Jews settled in Kaunas. The ban was renewed in 1682, and Jews were not permitted to settle in Kaunas and engage in trade until the 18t century when they were permitted to reside in two streets. In 1753 they were expelled from land belonging to the municipality. The Jews were again expelled in 1761, when there were anti-Jewish riots. They found refuge in the suburb of *Slobodka (Vilijampole) on the other side of the River Viliya, where a Jewish settlement had existed long before that of Kaunas. In 1782 the expelled Jews were permitted to return to Kaunas. After the partition of Poland in 1795 Kaunas became part of Russia. In 1797 the Christians in Kaunas again demanded the expulsion of the Jews, but the authorities in 1798 ordered that they should be left alone, and not be prevented from engaging in commerce and crafts. Restrictions on Jewish settlement there were again introduced in 1845 but abolished in 1858. The Jewish population increased as the town expanded. There were 2,013 Jews living in Kovno (Kaunas) and Slobodka in 1847; 16,540 in 1864; 25,441 in 1897 (30 of the total population); and 32,628 in 1908 (40). From the second half of the 19t century, Kovno became a center of Jewish cultural activity in Lithuania. Prominent there were Isaac Elhanan *Spektor (the “Kovner Rav,”; officiated 1864–96), Abraham *Mapu, one of the first modern Hebrew writers, and the literary critic *Ba’al Makhshoves (Israel Isidor Elyashev). The yeshivot of Slobodka became celebrated, in particular the Or Ḥ ayyim yeshivah, founded by Ẓ evi Levitan about 1863, which attracted students from other countries. It was headed by noted scholars. Nathan Ẓ evi *Finkel introduced *musar ideals there; from 1881 it was known as the Slobodka yeshivah. Subsequently there was opposition among the students to the musar method, and in 1897 the yeshivah

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

35

Bibliography: Y. Kaufmann Jubilee Volume (Eng. and Heb., 1960), incl. bibl., 1–6 (Heb. sect.); M. Haran, in: Moznayim, 24 (1964), 52–55; idem, Biblical Research in Hebrew (1970), 21–22, 25–28; Z. Woislavsky, Yeḥ idim bi-Reshut ha-Rabbim (1956), 265–88; Potok, in: Conservative Judaism, 18 no. 2 (Winter, 1964), 1–9; S. Talmon, in: ibidum 25 no. 2 (Winter, 1971), 20–28. Add. Bibliography: J. Levenson, in: Conservative Judaism, 36 (1982), 36–43; T. Krapf, Yehezkel Kaufmann: Ein Lebens – und Erkenntnisweg zur Theologie der hebraeischen Bibel (1990); idem, Die Priesterschaft und die vorexilische Zeit: Yehezkel Kaufmanns vernachlaessigte Beitrag zur Geschichte der biblischen Religion (1992); M. Greenberg, in: idem (ed.), Studies on the Bible and Jewish Thought (1995), 175–88; J. Hayes, in: DBI, 2:16–17; S.D. Sperling, in: D. Snell (ed.), A Companion to the Ancient Near East (2005), 408–20; I. Schorsch, Conservative Judaism, 59 (2005), 3–22.

Bibliography: H. Schnee, Die Hoffinanz und der moderne Staat, 4 (1963), 148–78. Add. Bibliography: K. Hebell, in: Hofjuden (2002), 332–48. [Joachim O. Ronall]

kaunas

was divided into two: the followers of musar established the Keneset Israel yeshivah, named after Israel *Lipkin (Salanter), while its opponents founded the Keneset Bet Yiẓ ḥ ak yeshivah, named after Isaac Elhanan Spektor. In May 1869 a conference was convened at Kovno to help Jewish refugees from northwestern Russia where the failure of the crops had led to famine and an outbreak of typhus. Another was held in November 1909 to work out a proposal for a law to establish Jewish community councils in Russia. The Kovno community maintained numerous ḥ adarim, schools, and libraries. It returned Jewish deputies to the first and second *Duma (L. *Bramson and Sh. *Abramson). The Jews in Kovno underwent many vicissitudes during World War I. In May 1915 an edict was issued by the czarist government expelling the Jews from the entire province. When later the city was occupied by the Germans, about 9,000 Jews returned, and communal life was revived with the help of Jews in Germany. Many who had been expelled to the Russian interior returned after the 1917 Revolution. After Kaunas became capital of independent Lithuania its community grew in importance. There were 25,044 Jews living in Kaunas according to the census of 1923 (over 25 of the total population) and 38,000 in 1933 (30). The most important Jewish commercial and industrial enterprises in independent Lithuania were in the capital. Other Jewish institutions included a central Jewish cooperative bank, part of the share capital being held by the Jewish people’s banks, which numbered 81 in 1930, and were directed from Kaunas. During the period when Jewish national cultural autonomy was authorized in Lithuania, at the beginning of the 1920s, Kaunas was the seat of the Ministry for Jewish Affairs, the Jewish National Council, and other central Lithuanian Jewish institutions and organizations. At the beginning of the 1930s five Jewish daily newspapers were published in Kaunas, the oldest being the Zionist daily Yidishe Shtime, founded in 1919. The network of Hebrew schools included kindergartens, elementary and high schools, and teachers’ seminaries. There were also schools where the language of instruction was Yiddish. Many of the youth belonged to the Zionist associations and *He-Ḥ alutz. Under Soviet rule from June 1940 to June 1941, the Jewish institutions were closed down. A Yiddish newspaper Kovner Emes was published. Holocaust Period During World War II, after the outbreak of the German-Soviet war and even before the Germans occupied the city (June 24, 1941), Jews were killed in Kaunas by Lithuanian Fascists. Immediately after the German occupation, large-scale antiJewish pogroms took place affecting some 35,000 Jews. At the instigation of Einsatzgruppe A, Lithuanian “partisans” carried out a pogrom in Slobodka (Vilijampole), in which 800 Jews were killed. Jews were also arrested in various parts of the city and taken to the Seventh Fort, a part of the old fortress, where between 6,000 and 7,000 of them were murdered in the beginning of July. An order issued on July 11, 1941, stipulated that between July 15 and August 15 all the Jews in the

36

city and its suburbs were to move into a ghetto to be set up in Slobodka. This was followed by other anti-Jewish measures. On Aug. 7, 1941, 1,200 Jewish men were picked up in the streets and about 1,000 put to death. In these pogroms, as in the later persecution and Aktionen, the Lithuanians again took a very active part. The Slobodka ghetto contained 29,760 people. Following an Aktion there, 9,200 Jews were killed at the Ninth Fort situated near Slobodka on October 29, 1941. Another 20,000 with their belongings were sent there from Germany, Austria, France, and other European countries – for “resettlement in the East” – and murdered. Another 4,000 ghetto residents were murdered in various other Aktionen between August and December 1941. Two “resettlement actions” took place in 1942 in which Jews from Kaunas ghetto were transferred to *Riga. On Oct. 26, 1943, approximately 3,000 Jews were deported to concentration camps in Estonia. The ghetto was then turned into “concentration camp Kauen.” At this time the united Jewish underground, which had been operating in the ghetto from the end of 1941 and had 800 members, began sending people to the Augustova forests (74 mi. (120 km.) south of Kaunas) to join the partisan resistance against the Germans. Through lack of experience and the hostility of the local population many of the members of the underground were killed or captured. A group of them, who were employed by the *Gestapo in burning the corpses of the victims in the Ninth Fort, managed to escape on Christmas Eve of 1943. They were then sent by the ghetto underground to the forests of Rudnicka (about 90 mi. (150 km.) east of Kaunas) and were absorbed into the Soviet partisan units, which comprised various national groups. From the fall of 1943 to the spring of 1944, the underground, aided by members of the Aeltestenrat (see *Judenrat), especially its chairman, Elhanan *Elkes, and the Jewish ghetto police, managed to send about 250 armed fighters to Rudnicka and other forests, where more than one-third were killed in action against the Germans. The leader of the underground, Chaim Yelin, was captured and killed by the Gestapo. A group of Jewish partisans died in a clash with Gestapo forces on the outskirts of Kaunas in April 1944. On March 27–28, 1944, another special Aktion took place in which 2,000 children, elderly and sick persons were hunted down. When the Soviet attack began in July 1944, the Germans liquidated the Kaunas ghetto and concentration camps in the area, using grenades and explosives, to kill the Jews hiding in the bunkers. In this Aktion about 8,000 Jews and others were sent to Germany. The men were sent to *Dachau and the women to *Stutthof, and over 80 of them died in these camps before liberation. Kaunas was taken by Soviet forces on Aug. 1, 1944. Most of the Jewish survivors did not return to Lithuania, but chose to remain in the *Displaced Persons’ camps, where they were later joined by other Jews from Kaunas who had left Lithuania after its liberation. Contemporary Period Most of the survivors from Kaunas eventually settled in Israel. Jews settled there from other places, however. The Jewish pop-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kauvar, charles eliezer hillel

ulation numbered 4,792 (2.24 of the total) in 1959. There was a synagogue. In 1961 a Jewish amateur theater troupe (Yidisher Selbsttetigkeyt Kolektiv), consisting of a drama group, choir, orchestra, and dance group, was organized in Kaunas, holding public performances from time to time. In 1963 the Jewish cemetery was plowed up and Jews were ordered to bury their dead in the general cemetery. However, at their request, they were permitted a separate Jewish section. Several incidents in which Jews were beaten up in the streets were reported in 1968. In independent Lithuania (from 1991), the Kaunas Jewish community made efforts to reconstitute itself, renovating the synagogue and opening a museum. Around 500 Jews remained there. Bibliography: S.A. Bershadski, Litovskiye Yevrei 1388–1569 (1883); D.M. Lipman, Le-Toldot ha-Yehudim be-Kovno u-ve-Slobodka (1931), 82–233; M. Sundarsky et al. (eds.), Lite, 1 (1951), index; 2 (1965), 641–72; Yahadut Lita, 1 (1959), index; 3 (1967), 273–83; J. Gar; Umkum fon der Yidisher Kovne (1948); In Geloyf fun Khoreve Heymen (1952); Algemeyne Entsiklopedye; Yidn, 6 (1969), index; L. Garfunkel, Kovne ha-Yehudit be-Ḥ urbanah (1959); Z.A. Brown and D. Levin, Toledoteha shel Maḥ terer (1962), with bibl. pp. 402–9; Edut Ḥ ayyah: Getto Kovna bi-Temunot (1958). [Joseph Gar]

KAUSHANY (Rom. Caˇuşani), small town in Bessarabia, S.E. Moldova. A number of tombstones in the ancient Jewish cemetery in Kaushany, thought to date from the 16t century, indicate that there may have been Jews living in the place in this period. However, it is certain that there was a Jewish settlement in Kaushany by the beginning of the 18t century, when it was the center of the Tatar rule in southern Bessarabia. By 1817 it numbered 53 Jewish families. The community increased with the large Jewish immigration into Bessarabia in the 19t century, and in 1897 numbered 1,675 persons (45 of the total population). In 1853 over 80 families of Jewish farmers in Kaushany were granted landholdings by the state, and were reclassified as “state farmers.” Due to difficult economic conditions, they were permitted to return in 1864 to the category of townsmen. A number of Jews in Kaushany continued in agricultural occupations, however, among whom there were large cattle and sheep farmers: in 1849 two Jewish farmers owned between them approximately one thousand head of cattle and three thousand sheep and goats. The Jews in Kaushany numbered 1,872 in 1930 (35.1 of the total population).

while attempting to escape, were taken to the cemetery. The Germans, after removing their gold teeth and rings, poured petrol over them and burned them to death. Local Romanians and Ukrainians assisted in the massacre. Only three families returned to Kaushany after the war. All the Jewish houses were in ruins and the Jewish cemetery had been desecrated and destroyed. The community was not revived after the war. [Jean Ancel]

°KAUTZSCH, EMIL FRIEDRICH (1841–1910), German Protestant Bible critic and Semitist who as editor of a number of works on Bible and Semitic philology helped educate a generation of German theologians and biblicists. Born in Plauen, Saxony, he taught in Leipzig (until 1872), Basle (1872–80), Tuebingen (1880–88), and Halle (from 1888). Kautsch visited Ottoman Palestine in 1876 and 1904, which led him in 1877 to participate in founding the Deutscher Palästina Verein. From 1888 he was one of the editors of the influential Theologische Studien und Kritiken. In the area of Bible studies Kautzsch published a translation and commentary on the Book of Psalms (1893) and a dissertation on biblical poetry (1902). In collaboration with other scholars he wrote about the sources of Genesis (1888, with A. Solchin), the books of the Bible (1894), and Proverbs in the Polychrome Bible (1901, with A. Mueller). He helped edit Die Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments… (1899) and Textbibel des Alten und Neuen Testaments (1900, 19113). On the subject of Hebrew and Aramaic philology he edited the second to eighth editions of H. Scholz’ Abriss der hebraeischen Laut-und Formenlehre (1874–99), and the 22nd to 28t editions of *Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar (1878–1908), and a valuable grammar of biblical Aramaic in 1902, based on a similar work of 1888. Kautzsch’s literary activity also includes a study on the apostle Paul (1869), a history of the Moabites (1876, with A. Solchin), and the editorship of the tenth and 11t editions of K.R. Hagenbach’s Encyklopädie und Methodologie (1880–84). Kautzsch was an involved church member who attempted to bring the results of biblical scholarship to the wider German Protestant community. Bibliography: The New Schaff-Herzog Encylopedia of Religious Knowledge, 6 (1953), 302 (incl. bibl.); Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar (1910), preface by Cowley includes bibliography. Add. Bibliography: C. Begg, in: DBI II, 17. [Zev Garber]

[Eliyahu Feldman]

Holocaust Period After Kaushany passed to Soviet control in 1940, the new authorities immediately arrested the Zionist leaders and exiled them to Siberia, where they all perished. All but one of the synagogues in the town were closed down. When war broke out in the summer of 1941, the Soviet authorities lent their help to all who wanted to escape. Some Jews went to Odessa on foot and continued from there into the interior of the U.S.S.R. Others were handed over to the Germans by local collaborators. All those who remained, as well as those who had been caught

KAUVAR, CHARLES ELIEZER HILLEL (1879–1971), U.S. rabbi, communal leader, and educator. Few rabbis leave an imprint on a community as did Kauvar during the 69 years he served in *Denver, Colorado, from 1902 to 1971, as active rabbi at the Beth HaMedrosh Hagadol Congregation for 50 years and as rabbi emeritus for 19 years. Born in Vilna, Lithuania, he came to New York in 1881 at the age of two, received a B.A. from City College of New York and was ordained at the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1902, where he also earned a D.H.L. in 1909.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

37

kavalla

Kauvar brought Conservative Judaism to Denver at a time when it was predominantly Reform on the East Side of the city, with an Orthodox enclave growing on the West Side. He became an active communal leader, helping to found the Jewish Consumptive Relief Society in 1904 to aid traditional Jews who came to Denver for a cure of their tuberculosis. He was president of the Central Jewish Council from 1912 to 1920 and aided in the establishment of the Intermountain Jewish News. He was a life-long Zionist, a founder of Mizrachi in Denver, and has a colored stained glass window dedicated in his honor in the Beit Medrash of the Heichal Shlomo in Jerusalem. Although Kauvar helped found the United Synagogue of America (Conservative), serving as its first vice president from 1912 to 1914, and becoming the first president of the Midwest Region of the Rabbinical Assembly (Conservative) in 1923, he felt that by the 1950s the Conservative movement had lost its traditional moorings, and he was instrumental in having his congregation disaffiliate with the movement in 1955. In 1956, the BMH Congregation, as it was known, elected its first Orthodox rabbi to the pulpit, and it became a member of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations in 1972. Kauvar was one of the earliest professors of Judaic studies at universities in the United States, having joined the faculty at the University of Denver, a private institution established by the Methodist Church, in 1920, where he taught until 1966. An endowed Charles Eliezer Hillel Kauvar Publications Fund was established at the later formed university’s Center for Judaic Studies in his honor in recognition of his intellectual contributions to the University and community. Among his published works are Pirkei Aboth Comments (1929), What Is Judaism? (1933), Religion, the Hope of the World (1949) and Torah Comments (1952).

KAVALLA, city in Macedonia, Greece. After the capture of Budapest by the Turks in 1526 Hungarian Jews were brought first to Sofia, and in 1529 to Kavalla. Eventually both Sephardi and Ashkenazi Jews settled there. Eventually, the Sephardi community influenced the Ashkenazim in matters of halakhah, and they assimilated into the general Sephardi community. In the 16t century, there were four synagogues and a total of 500 Jews in the community. In 1676 the Jews comprised a third of the general population. By 1740 the Jewish population had dwindled to barely enough families for a minyan. The city developed in the first half of the 19t century due to the presence of local relatives of Mohammed Ali, who was born in Kavalla and as Egypt’s ruler contributed greatly to local growth. In the mid-19t century, as the port developed, several affluent Jewish families from Salonika moved to Kavalla. In 1880, the Jewish community numbered only 24 families, half of them from Salonika and Serres. The city’s synagogue, Beth El, was built in 1885. In the 19t century the Jewish community was augmented by an influx of tobacco merchants. A Jewish boys’ school was founded in 1889 and in 1905 a coed Alliance Israélite Universelle school was established. Blood libel accusa-

tions circulated against local Jews in 1894, 1900, and even 1926 under Greek rule. In the latter incident, the Jews were falsely blamed for the murder of a girl, and Greek-Orthodox rioters destroyed Jewish property in the ensuing riots. By 1900, the local Jewish community had grown to 230 families, comprising 1,000 to 1,300 people. About half the Jews worked in the tobacco industry and most of the others were storekeepers. There was also a group of poor Jews. In 1913 the Jewish population numbered 2,500, 3,200 in 1923, and 2,200 in 1940. Many Jews worked in the tobacco warehouses. As the Jewish community grew, so did Jewish poverty. In 1900, the Jewish community had several welfare societies: Ozer Dalim, Ezra be-Ẓ arrot, Ahavat Re’im, and a soup kitchen for children called Melo ha-Peh Leḥ em. In the First Balkan War, in November 1912, Bulgaria captured the city, and seven prominent Jews were arrested on suspicion of collaborating with the Turks. The Jews suffered, like the rest of the population, from neglect, and in the winter 120 families received food and coal for heating from the Chief Rabbinate of Bulgaria, the Alliance Israélite Universelle in Paris, and donors from among Hungarian Jewry. The Greeks took over the city on July 6, 1913, and brought relief to the residents of the city. In 1916, the Bulgarians recaptured the city, and the Jews, like the other residents of the city, suffered from starvation. Many were affected by the bombings. Many were recruited for forced labor by the Bulgarians, and again suspicions of treason circulated. Greek rule returned on October 19, 1918. That same month, 120 Jews and Muslims were mobilized for forced labor to repair war damages. Jews also had to do such menial work as cleaning the streets and GreekOrthodox homes. The Jewish community complained to the French government via the Alliance Israélite Universelle and after six days the Jews were relieved from this burden. In 1913 the local Zionist Or Zion society was established. Judah Ḥ ayyim Perahia edited its weekly Judeo-Spanish newspaper, Ha-Ẓ iyyonut. In the 1920s, two-thirds of the Jews worked in the tobacco industry and a hundred were shopkeepers or worked for merchants. As early as 1921, there were accounts of the Greek government forcing Jews to work on the Sabbath and taking Sunday as their day of rest. In Kavalla, as opposed to many other cities where the Jews protested, many Jews opened their businesses, including the president of the Jewish community himself. The community suffered greatly from the worldwide depression in the 1930s. In 1931, there were 200 unemployed Jewish tobacco workers. Throughout the 1930s, the local Jews received financial assistance from the Salonikan Jewish community. In 1941 Kavalla came under Bulgarian occupation. The Jews were pressured to assist the Bulgarians against the Greeks but they resisted. In retaliation the Bulgarians, guided by the Nazis, applied the racial laws in 1942 (see *Bulgaria, Holocaust). In the summer of 1942 many hundreds of Jews were put to forced labor in Kavalla and a few months later in early 1943 another group was sent to Bulgaria to work. On March

38

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

[Stanley M. Wagner (2nd ed.)]

kavvanah

3, 1943, 1,800 Jews were arrested and later deported to the Treblinka death camp in Poland. Part of the Kavallan Jewish community was on the Karageorge when the Bulgarians shot passengers on the Danube River. The Jewish population in 1948 numbered 42; according to the 1967 census there were 47 Jews living in Kavalla. By the beginning of the 21st century, the last elders of the three remaining families had passed away and no more Jews resided in the city. There still remains a Jewish cemetery intact. Bibliography: J.B. Angel, in: Almanak Izraelit (1923), 72–75 (Ladino). Add. Bibliography: B. Rivlin, “Kavalla,” in Pinkas Kehillot Yavan (1999), 327–39; Y. Kerem, “New Finds on Greek Jews in the Sobibor and Treblinka Death Camps in the Holocaust,” in: I. Hassiotis (ed.), The Jewish Communities of Southeastern Europe from the Fifteenth Century to the End of World War Two (1997), 249–62; Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem, S25/10746 and Karageorge photo file; Yad Vashem Archives, Jerusalem, TR 10/641, Beckerle Trial. [Simon Marcus / Yitzchak Kerem (2nd ed.)]

KAVERIN, BENJAMIN ALEKSANDROVICH (pseudonym of Benjamin A. Zilberg; 1902–1990), Soviet Russian author. The son of a musician, Kaverin was born in Pskov. His training as a historian and specialist in Oriental languages left a strong imprint on his choice of literary themes. Several of his books have foreign settings, both eastern and western. Thus the plot of The Great Game (1926) involves both Englishmen and Ethiopians. Others deal with historical subjects, such as Baron Brambeus (1929), a scholarly biography of Osip Senkovski, one of the most picturesque figures in 19t-century Russian literature. At the same time Kaverin was one of the few Russian detective-story writers, and some of his stories – especially those published in the permissive atmosphere of the 1920s – make good use of many of the devices of the genre. One of the most notable is Konets khazy (“The End of the Gang,” 1926), a captivating account of the Leningrad underworld. Kaverin’s most significant novel, Khudozhnik neizvesten (1931; The Unknown Artist, 1947), was a plea for the maintenance of the dignity of the individual in a collectivist society and for the preservation of beauty in a utilitarian age. Ispolneniye zhelaniy (1935; The Larger View, 1938) dealt with the problems of adjustment facing an intellectual in Soviet society. His long novel Dva kapitana (1946; Two Captains, 1957) was a great favorite with Russian youngsters when it was originally serialized between 1938 and 1944. He received the Stalin Prize for it in 1946. Aside from introducing Jewish allusions in some of his works, he wrote, for the *Jewish Antifascist Committee, a biography of Hero of the Soviet Union Fisanovich, and “The Uprising in Sobibor” together with P. Antokolski. In postStalinist Russia Kaverin was among the leading exponents of liberalization, frequently incurring the wrath of the Stalinist establishment. His later works include Sem par nechistykh (“Seven Pairs of the Unclean,” 1962), which describes inmates of a Soviet concentration camp fighting for the right to defend their homeland in the ranks of the Soviet army, and speeches published by Samizdat in 1967. ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: G. Struve, Soviet Russian Literature 1917–50 (1951), 107–11, 275f., 360; M. Slonim, Modern Russian Literature (1953), 294f., 297; M. Friedberg and R.A. Maguire (eds.), A Bilingual Collection of Russian Short Stories, 2 (1965), 89–211. [Maurice Friedberg]

KAVNER, JULIE (1951– ), U.S. actress. Born in Los Angeles, California, Kavner is best known for her roles as Rhoda’s sister, Brenda Morgenstern, on the television show Rhoda – one of the first television shows to feature an openly Jewish lead character – and as the voice of Marge Simpson on the animated show The Simpsons. On The Simpsons, Kavner also provided the voices for Patty, Selma, Jacqueline, and Gladys Bouvier. Kavner’s most notable on-screen film role was her portrayal of a divorced Jewish woman struggling to reconcile her aspirations as a stand-up comedian with her responsibilities to her children in Nora Ephron’s This Is My Life (1992). In addition to appearing as Treva in New York Stories (1989), Eleanor Costello in Awakenings (1990), and Lucy in Forget Paris (1995), Kavner worked extensively with Woody Allen, appearing in a number of his films, including the role of Allen’s mother in the comedy Radio Days (1987), Alma in Shadows and Fog (1992), Nan Muhanney in I’ll Do Anything and Grace in Deconstructing Harry (1997). [Walter Driver (2nd ed.)]

KAVVANAH (Heb. ‫ ; ַּכ ָ ּונָ ה‬lit. “directed intention”), the phrase used in rabbinic literature to denote a state of mental concentration and devotion at prayer and during the performance of mitzvot. Although the demand for kavvanah as an obligatory component of religious prayer and action is not explicitly mentioned in the Pentateuch, it is clearly referred to by the prophets. Isaiah, for instance, condemns those who “with their mouth and with their lips do honor Me, but have removed their heart far from Me” (Isa. 29:13). Kavvanah in Prayer The Talmud attaches considerable importance to kavvanah in prayer. The Mishnah quotes R. Simeon’s dictum: “Do not regard your prayer as a fixed mechanical device, but as an appeal for mercy and grace before the All-Present” (Avot 2:13). It is, furthermore, related that the early ḥ asidim used to wait an hour before and after prayer to achieve a state of kavvanah and emerge from it (Ber. 5:1). However, from the discussion in the Mishnah and the Gemara (Ber. 32b), it is clear that the rabbis, keenly aware of the “problem” of prayer were by no means unanimous in their interpretation of what proper kavvanah should be. Later medieval authors distinguished between the preparation for kavvanah which precedes prayer and the achievement of kavvanah during prayer itself (e.g., Kuzari, 3:5 and 17), while repeatedly stressing the importance of both. Maimonides ruled as a matter of halakhah (which was not, however, agreed with by later codifiers) that “since prayer without kavvanah is no prayer at all, if one has prayed without kavvanah he has to pray again with kavvanah. Should one feel preoccupied or overburdened, or should one have just

39

kawkabn

returned from a voyage, one must delay one’s prayer until one can once again pray with kavvanah… True kavvanah implies freedom from all strange thoughts, and complete awareness of the fact that one stands before the Divine Presence” (Yad, Tefillah, 4:15, 16). The Shulḥ an Arukh states “better a little supplication with kavvanah, than a lot without it” (Oh 1:4). Many talmudic decisions relating to kavvanah were modified in the course of time. Thus, although the Mishnah (Ber. 2:5) states that a bridegroom is not required to read the *Shema on his wedding night (because he would not be able to achieve a proper degree of concentration), it was later ruled that “since nowadays we do not pray with proper attention in any case” he must do so (Sh. Ar., Oh 60:3). Similarly, “even if one did not recite the Amidah with kavvanah, it is not necessary to repeat it,” since it is assumed that the kavvanah of the repetition would be no better (ibid., 101:1, and see Isserles, ad loc.). In the Kabbalah kavvanot (the plural of kavvanah) denotes the special thoughts one should have at the recitation of key words in prayer. Very often these thoughts are divorced from the contextual meaning of the words and are of a mystical, esoteric nature. Some kabbalists were thus known as mekhavvenim (i.e., those who have kavvanot) and guides to kavvanot were written (cf. Emmanuel Ḥ ai Ricchi’s Mafte’aḥ ha-Kavvanot, Amsterdam, 1740). Kavvanah in Mitzvot This is defined as the intention of the person performing the action to do so with the explicit intention of fulfilling the religious injunction which commands the action. One example of a lack of kavvanah quoted in the Mishnah (Ber. 2:1) is the case of one who reads the Shema during the morning (or evening), for the purpose of study and not fulfillment of the mitzvah; another is the case of one who hears the shofar on Rosh Ha-Shanah accidentally and thus does not have kavvanah for the mitzvah (RH 3:7). All authorities agree that due kavvanah to perform such mitzvot is desirable. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to whether mitzvot performed without kavvanah are valid, or whether they must be repeated (cf. Ber. 13a; RH 28a; Sh. Ar., Oh 60:4).

emigration from there to Israel, was considerably distant from the Arab town; one had to descend into a wadi and climb a slope on the opposite side in order to reach the Jewish section. There was one synagogue. Most of the Jews made their living in pottery; others were shoemakers and tailors, especially of leather jackets. Bibliography: J. Saphir, Even Sappir (1864), 77–8; C. Rathjens and H. Wissmann, Landeskundliche Ergebnisse (1934), 94, 134; C. Rathjens, Jewish Domestic Architecture in Sana, Yemen (1957), 64–7. [Yosef Tobi (2nd ed.)]

KAY, BARRY (1932–1985), stage designer. Kay was born in Melbourne, Australia, but studied in Switzerland and at the Académie Julien, Paris. He moved to London in 1956 and began designing for the Western Theater Ballet and the Aldeburgh and Edinburgh Festivals. His first complete production was for Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure at the Old Vic Theatre in 1957. He designed productions for the Théatre de la Monnaie, Brussels, the Royal Shakespeare Company, England, the Royal Ballet Company, Covent Garden, the Staatsoper, Berlin, and the Stuttgart Ballet. His principal work was for ballet, notably in association with the choreographer Kenneth Macmillan for the ballets The Sleeping Beauty and Anastasia. Kay designed a number of ballets for Rudolph Nureyev including Raymonda and Don Quixote, which was also filmed with the Australian Ballet Company. His work is noted for brilliant decorative invention as well as remarkable psychological interpretation of the themes and subjects involved. He held a number of exhibitions of his stage designs in London, Berlin, Australia, and New York. Kay was noted for his pioneering use of three-dimensional sets in the 1960s. His work is in important museum collections, including the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, the National Gallery of Western Australia, and the National-Bibliothek, Vienna. [Charles Samuel Spencer (2nd ed.)]

KAWKABĀN, important mountain stronghold during the Ottoman occupation of the lower regions of *Yemen, northwest of San‘a. Kawkabān is about one hour’s walk from Shibām. Although the exact date of the city’s origin is not precisely known, the existing ruins and artifacts of the city give us a clue to its ancient existence from the Himyari period. Recorded history goes back 950 years and speaks of Kawkabān as a depository for grain. Kawkabān is known from the description of Jacob *Saphir, who stayed in these places in 1858 during his travels. The Jewish quarter of Kawkabān, in which some 60 families lived during the last generation before the

KAYE, DANNY (David Daniel Kaminsky; 1913–1987), U.S. actor and entertainer. The son of a tailor, Kaye was born and brought up in Brooklyn, New York. He turned to entertaining after a brief career as an insurance agent and, starting in the Catskill Mountains, was a great success on the “Borscht Circuit.” In 1939 he played ten weeks on Broadway in The Straw Hat Revue, a show partly devised by Sylvia Fine, whom he married and who continued to write material for him. His spectacular rise to stardom began in 1941, when Moss *Hart saw him at a New York night club and decided to write a part for him in the musical Lady in the Dark, in which Kaye scored an immediate success. His other Broadway performances were in Let’s Face It (1941–43); Danny Kaye Revue (Tony Award, 1953 and 1963); and, later in his career, Two by Two (1970). He became a favorite on both sides of the Atlantic, with appearances on stage and screen. His versatile gifts were fully displayed in the film version of James Thurber’s short story The Secret Life of Walter Mitty (1947). His other films include

40

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: Enelow, in: Studies… K. Kohler (1913), 82–107; Scholem, in: mgwj, 78 (1934), 492–518; Weiss, in: jjs, 9 (1958), 163–92; A.J. Heschel, Torah min ha-Shamayim be-Aspaklaryah shel ha-Dorot, 1 (1962), 168–9. [H. Elchanan Blumenthal]

kaye, Nora

The Kid from Brooklyn (1946), A Song Is Born (1948), The Inspector General (1949), On the Riviera (Golden Globe for Best Actor, 1951), Hans Christian Andersen (1952), White Christmas (1954), The Court Jester (1956), Merry Andrew (1958), Me and the Colonel (Golden Globe for Best Actor, 1958), The Five Pennies (1959), On the Double (1961), and The Madwoman of Chaillot (1969). Kaye developed a highly individual style that relied on mime, song, irony, and a sunny personality. His specialty was reciting tongue-twisting songs and monologues. Those powers were perhaps seen at their best in the theater, where he could hold an audience with an hour-long act of song and patter. In 1960, he began doing specials on television, which led to his own TV series, The Danny Kaye Show (1963 to 1967). He won an Emmy for his variety show in 1964. In 1955 he won an honorary Academy Award for his unique talents, and in 1982 he was honored with the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award. He retired from show business in 1967, serving as ambassador-at-large for the United Nations International Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and conducting symphony orchestras in fundraising concerts. He was a frequent visitor to Israel and wrote Around the World Story Book (1960). Bibliography: M. Gottfried, Nobody’s Fool: The Lives of Danny Kaye (1994); M. Freedland, The Secret Life of Danny Kaye (1985). [Jo Ranson / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

KAYE, SIR EMMANUEL (1914–1999), British industrialist. Born in Russia, Emmanuel Kaye came to England as a small child and was educated at Twickenham Technical College. In 1940, he founded J.E. Shay Ltd., precision gauge tool and instrument makers; in 1943 he took over Lansing Bagnall, making it the largest manufacturers of electric fork lift trucks in Europe. He supplied the Royal Household and won the Queen’s Award for exports and for technological innovation. Kaye served as chairman of the Kaye Organization and of Lansing Bagnall, and allied companies in Switzerland and Germany, and of many other companies. At its peak in the 1970s, Lansing Bagnall employed 3,500 people and was the largest manufacturer of fork lift equipment in Europe. His public activities included the Confederation of British Industry and membership of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art. He was a trustee of the Glyndebourne Opera from 1979 to 1984. He was knighted in 1974. Kaye left a fortune of £46.3 million at his death.

were long-time members of Sephardi Congregation Shearith Israel in New York City. Her meteoric career began as a litigation associate at the New York law firm of Olwine, Connelly, Chase, O’Donnell, and Weyher (1969–83), where she became the firm’s first woman partner. Recognizing Kaye’s accomplishments as a trial lawyer and her efforts on behalf of the Bar Association, and looking to diversify the court system, Governor Mario Cuomo appointed her as the first female associate judge of the New York State Court of Appeals in 1983, and chief judge in 1993, a position that makes her head of the state judiciary as well as of the Court of Appeals. As chief judge she promoted jury reform and streamlined the court system by creating special courts throughout the state to deal with drug abuse, domestic violence, and family dysfunction. Her reanalysis of traditional legal roles and partnering of specialized courts with outside agencies led to improved results and more public trust and became a model for other U.S. states. Kaye was also active in improving the status of women and children and in addressing domestic violence; in 1993, she convened the state’s first Matrimonial Commission to reform New York’s divorce custody system, and in 2004 she created a new 32-member panel State Matrimonial Commission to examine excessive costs in child custody divorce battles. She was a founding member and honorary chair of the Judges and Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert, co-chair of the Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children, and a member of the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence. Her publications address domestic issues and legal process, state constitutional law, women in law, professional ethics, and problem solving. Kaye’s many honors include the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession’s Margaret Brent Women Lawyers of Achievement Award, the National Center for State Courts’ William H. Rehnquist Award for Judicial Excellence, New York University Law School’s Vanderbilt Medal, and the Barnard Medal of Distinction. Bibliography: J.F. Rosen, “Kaye, Judith S.,” in: Jewish Women in American: An Historical Encyclopedia (P.E. Hyman and D.D. Moore, eds.), Vol. 1 (1997), 733–34. [Judith Friedman Rosen (2nd ed.)]

KAYE, JUDITH S. (1938– ), first woman to serve as chief judge of the State of New York . Kaye was born in Monticello, N.Y., to Lena and Benjamin Smith. She attended Barnard College (B.A., 1958) and New York Law School (LL.B., 1962) and married attorney Stephen Rackow Kaye. Kaye and her family

KAYE, NORA (1920–1987), U.S. dramatic ballerina. She began her ballet training when she was eight, and at 15 joined the corps of the Metropolitan Opera Ballet. When Ballet Theater was founded in 1939, she entered the corps de ballet and quickly rose to prima ballerina status. She starred in classical repertory and in many contemporary ballets, but she was primarily identified with the English choreographer, Antony Tudor. Her characterization of Hagar in Pillar of Fire (1942) was regarded as a great example of tragic acting. Others of Tudor’s works in which she appeared were Lilac Garden, Dark Elegies, and Dim Lustre. In 1951 Nora Kaye left Ballet Theater for the New York City Ballet, where she created the role of the novice in Jerome Robbins’ The Cage. Returning to Ballet Theater in 1954, she danced in the works of Herbert Ross, whom she

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

41

Add. Bibliography: ODNB online; L.T.C. Rolt, Lansing Bagnall: The First Twenty-One Years at Basingstoke (1970). [Vivian David Lipman / Willian D. Rubinstein (2nd ed.)]

Kayfetz, Ben

married in 1959. After a brief tour with a company organized by herself and Ross, Ballets of Two Worlds, she retired from dancing in 1960. [Marcia B. Siegel]

KAYFETZ, BEN (1916–2002), Canadian Jewish public servant, journalist, broadcaster, human rights activist, Yiddishist. Kayfetz was born in Toronto’s immigrant community. In 1939 he graduated from the University of Toronto with a B.A. in modern languages and, after a short stint as a high school teacher, he worked for the Canadian Wartime Information Board, then for the Canadian Control Commission in postwar Germany. After visiting Holocaust survivors in Displaced Person’s Camps and attending the 1946 Zionist Conference in Basle, Kayfetz returned to Canada as director of public relations for the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC). He worked in the Central Region CJC for the next 37 years, becoming director of the Joint Community Relations Committee in 1955 and executive director of the CJC Central Region in 1973. During that time he was involved with numerous issues, including international affairs, Soviet Jewry, Yiddish, kashrut and Israel advocacy. He retired in 1985, but continued to advise CJC leadership until his death in 2002. Kayfetz is remembered for his important work advancing human rights in postwar Canada. He was instrumental in organizing successful campaigns for passage of legislation banning discrimination in employment and housing, removing nonsectarian teaching from Ontario public schools, and enactment of federal anti-hate legislation and legislation dealing with war crimes. He remained a backbone of the Canadian Jewish community’s struggle against antisemites, Holocaust deniers, and racists, often organizing the secret infiltration of hate groups. While Kayfetz insisted that he was not a professional historian, he had an encyclopedic knowledge of the Canadian Jewish community and the Toronto community in particular. He published many popular and scholarly articles on the Canadian Jewish community and freely shared his knowledge with scholars and students alike. Kayfetz was a founder and president of the Toronto Jewish Historical Society; he wrote Toronto Jewry 60 Years Ago and edited Canadian content entries in the first edition of Encyclopaedia Judaica. He was also a frequent contributor to the Globe and Mail, the Canadian Jewish Standard (under the pseudonym of Gershon B. Newman), The American Jewish Yearbook, The Jewish Chronicle of London, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. In his last years, he was a radio commentator in Toronto. In 1985 Kayfetz was honored with membership in the Order of Canada in 1985 in recognition of his efforts in securing human rights.

burg, Kayser was for several years a teacher in Berlin. In 1919 he joined the editorial staff of the S. Fischer publishing house and became editor in chief of the literary periodical Die Neue Rundschau in 1924. Kayser was dismissed from these posts by the Nazis in 1933, settled in the U.S. two years later, and held the chair of German and European literatures at Brandeis University from 1951 to 1957. His Jewish interests found expression in the essays and reviews that he contributed to Jewish periodicals, which included the Neue Juedische Monatshefte, Der Jude, and Historia Judaica, and in books such as Moses Tod. Legende (1921), Spinoza, Bildnis eines geistigen Helden (1932), and The Life and Time of Jehuda Halevi (1949). His biographical studies also include Stendhal, oder das Leben eines Egotisten (1928), and Kant (1934). In his biographies he was less interested in discovering new facts about his subjects than in revealing their mental outlook and their Weltanschauung. He was especially influential in pre-Nazi Germany, discovering and encouraging literary talent not only through Verkuendigung (1921), his anthology of young lyricists, but also as editor of the Neue Rundschau, one of the most authoritative literary organs of the era. Bibliography: Kuerschner, in: Literatur-Kalender (1931), S.V. Add. Bibliography: P. de Mendelssohn, S. Fischer und sein Verlag (1970); T.S. Hansen, “Rudolf Kayser,” in: Deutschsprachige Exilliteratur seit 1933, J.M. Spalek and J.P. Strelka (eds.), 2 (1989), 421–32; C. Foucart, “André Gide, Rudolf Kayser et Die Neue Rundschau,” in: Bulletin des Amis d’André Gide, 31/37 (2003), 67–79. [Sol Liptzin]

KAYSER, RUDOLF (1889–1964), German author and literary journalist. After studying in Berlin, Munich, and Wuerz-

KAYSERLING, MEYER (Moritz; 1829–1905), German rabbi and historian. Kayserling, born in Hanover, studied with S.R. Hirsch in Nikolsburg, S.J. Rapoport in Prague, and S.B. Bamberger in Wuerzburg and at Halle University. From 1861 to 1870 he was rabbi at Endingen, Switzerland, where he fought strenuously for Jewish rights; thereafter he was rabbi and preacher in Budapest. Kayserling published a large number of works on various aspects of Jewish history, literature, and religion, mostly in German, which were very popular in their day, including Moses Mendelssohn: sein Leben und seine Werke (1862, 18882); Bibliothek juedischer Kanzelredner (2 vols., 1870–72); Die juedischen Frauen in der Geschichte… (1879); and a popular Jewish history, Lehrbuch der juedischen Geschichte und Literatur (1874); which ultimately went through ten editions. He also contributed the section on modern Jewish literature to Winter and Wuensche’s handbook on post-biblical Jewish literature, Juedische Literatur seit dem Abschluss des Kanons… (vol. 3, 1896). But Kayserling’s reputation rests on his long series of pioneering publications on the history of Spanish Jewry and the Marranos, based to a great degree on original and, in some cases manuscript, sources. His Geschichte der Juden in Spanien und Portugal, which in fact covered mainly Navarre and the Balearic Islands (vol. 1, 1861) and Portugal (vol. 2, 1867), was the first work in which Hebrew sources were consistently

42

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

[Frank Bialystok (2nd ed.)]

kazan, lainie

used. His works on Marrano history and literature put the study on a new footing and were the basis of all subsequent treatments. They include Sephardim: Romanische Poesien der Juden in Spanien (1859); Menasseh ben Israel (1861); Christoph Columbus und der Anteil der Juden an den spanischen und portugiesischen Entdeckungen (1894; Christopher Columbus and the Participation of the Jews in the Spanish and Portuguese Discoveries, 1894, repr. 1968), written at the request of the Spanish government on the occasion of the 400t anniversary of the discovery of America; and his great bibliography of Marrano literature Bibliotheca española-portugueza-judaica (Fr., 1890, repr. 1962 and 1971). In addition, the articles he contributed to the Jewish Encyclopedia on these subjects have retained their importance. Many of his works were translated into English and some into Hebrew. More than 100 of his articles on Jewish history and literature published before 1900 are listed in M. Schwab’s Répertoire des articles relatifs à l’histoire et à la littérature juives… (1914–23). Bibliography: L. Philippson, Biography of Meyer Kayserling (1898); W.A. Meisel, Ein Lebens-und Zeitbild… (1891); M. Weisz, Bibliographie der Schriften Dr. M. Kayserlings (1929); E. Neumann, Kayserling (Hg., 1906). [Cecil Roth]

KAZAKEVICH, EMMANUIL GENRIKHOVICH (1913– 1962), Soviet Russian author. Born in the Ukrainian town of Kremenchug, Kazakevich grew up in a Yiddish-speaking milieu. As a young man he went to *Birobidzhan, capital of the autonomous Jewish region in the Soviet Far East, where he worked in a variety of jobs: managing a collective farm, directing a theater, and writing for a Yiddish newspaper. From 1938 he lived in Moscow. In the 1930s Kazakevich was considered one of the most promising young poets in Soviet Yiddish literature. Much of his original Yiddish verse is to be found in the antholoy Di Groyse Velt (“The Great World,” 1939). He was also known for his Yiddish translations of prerevolutionary and Soviet Russian writers, including Pushkin, Lermontov, and Mayakovsky. During World War II Kazakevich served in the Red Army and was wounded four times. He rose from ordinary scout to the rank of deputy commander of an army reconnaissance unit. Most of his later writings were inspired by his wartime experiences. After the war he began to write exclusively in Russian. Indeed, his former career as a Yiddish poet appears to have caused him some embarrassment. His first Russian novel, Zvezda (1947; The Star, 1950), was followed by Dvoye v stepi (“Two on a Steppe,” 1948) and Vesna na Odere (1949; The Spring on the Oder, 1953). He was severely criticized for these works, because he emphasized the problems of honor and free choice. Although Kazakevich, twice a Stalin prize-winner, escaped the tragic fate of many Soviet Jewish intellectuals during the virulently antisemitic purges of Stalin’s last years, he was undoubtedly aware of the constant danger to his life during that period. This may explain his novel Dom na ploshchadi (1956; The House on ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

the Square, 1960), published at the height of the post-Stalin “thaw.” The book describes the atmosphere of morbid suspicion prevalent in the Soviet army during the early postwar years. The 1962 novella Vragi (“The Enemies”), a thinly veiled appeal for tolerance, even toward political dissenters, depicted Lenin’s magnanimity to his Menshevik opponents. The work was severely criticized as politically dangerous. Some of his works remained unpublished, such as “The Call for Help,” about a ghetto seen through the eyes of a Russian officer. In the 1950s he went back to writing in Yiddish, and his articles were published in the Yiddish press in Warsaw, Poland. Bibliography: A. Bocharov, Emanuil Kazakevich (Rus., 1965); O.D. Galubeva et al., Russkiye Sovetskiye Pisateli, 2 (1964), 264–73. [Maurice Friedberg]

KAZAKHSTAN, former Soviet republic in Central Asia, and from 1991 an independent republic of the CIS. It numbered 19,240 Jews (0.3 of the total) in 1939. In 1979 its Jewish population totaled 23,500 and in 1989, 19,900. By the early 2000s the figure had dropped to around 4,000 after the mass emigrations of the 1990s. The Jewish community is very assimilated. In 1987 47.2 of children born to Jewish mothers had non-Jewish fathers. Nonetheless a Jewish educational system and synagogue were operating in Alma-Ata in 2006 under Rabbi Menachem Gershovich and a rabbi was also installed in Kavaganda. [Michael Beizer (2nd ed.)]

KAZAN, capital of Tatarstan autonomous republic, in the Russian Federation, an important commercial and industrial center, mainly of the oil industry. Until the 1917 Revolution, Kazan was outside the Jewish *Pale of Settlement. In 1861, 184 Jews lived in the city, most of them veterans of the army of Nicholas I. By 1897, their numbers had increased to 1,467 (1.1 of the total population). Pogroms broke out in the city in October 1905. During World War I many exiles from the battle areas and from Lithuania arrived in Kazan. In 1926, there were 4,156 Jews in the city (2.3 of the population), which grew to 5,278 (1.33 of the total) in 1939. During the subsequent years, under the Soviet regime there was no possibility of developing any Jewish communal life. During WWII many refugees reached the city and remained there after the war. The Jewish population of Kazan was estimated at about 8,000 in 1970. One synagogue existed until 1962, when it was closed down by the authorities. Jews prayed in private houses (minyanim), even though this was prohibited. The Jewish cemetery was still in use in 1970. [Yehuda Slutsky / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]

KAZAN, LAINIE (Levine; 1940– ), U.S. singer, actress. A Brooklyn native, Kazan has achieved considerable success as an actress in film, television, and the stage and as a singer in both musicals and nightclub acts. Her big break came as Bar-

43

kazarnovski, isaac abramovich

bra *Streisand’s understudy in the Broadway production of Funny Girl, replacing Streisand for two shows and earning rave reviews. Kazan began starring in nightclub acts and musicals before making the jump into film and television. In 1982, she received a Golden Globe nomination for her portrayal of Jewish mother Belle Carroca in My Favorite Year (1982). She would later receive a Tony award nomination for her reprisal of the same role in the Broadway musical adaptation. Kazan’s other notable film credits include a role in fellow Hofstra alumnus Francis Ford Coppola’s One From the Heart (1982) and such films as Lust in the Dust (1985), Harry and the Hendersons (1987), Beaches (1988), The Cemetery Club (1993), My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002), and Gigli (2003). Kazan has made many television appearances over a period of four decades, receiving an Emmy nomination for her guest role on St. Elsewhere, appearing in repeat roles on The Nanny, Veronica’s Closet, Beverly Hills 90210, and My Big Fat Greek Life as well as making guest appearances on shows such as The Paper Chase, Touched By An Angel, and Will and Grace. [Walter Driver (2nd ed.)]

KAZARNOVSKI, ISAAC ABRAMOVICH (1890–?), Russian inorganic chemist. Kazarnovski studied in Switzerland and received his doctorate in Zurich in 1914 and in 1922 he joined the Karpov Physico-chemical Institute of the University of Moscow. He became a corresponding member of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences in 1939 and was awarded the Stalin Prize in 1941. Kazarnovski wrote on chlorides and peroxides of metals, the production of anhydrous aluminum chloride from clays, and of sodium peroxide, and methods for regenerating air. He discovered sodium dioxide Na-O2 and potassium ozonide KO3. [Samuel Aaron Miller]

KAZATIN, city in Vinnitsa district, Ukraine, an important railroad junction. A Jewish community developed in the late 19t century, numbering 1,731 (20 of the total population) in 1897. During the civil war (1917–20) the Jews suffered greatly at the hands of the various armies passing through the town. In 1926 the Jewish population reached 3,012 (20). During the Soviet period many Jews worked in a sugar refinery, on the railroad, and in two Jewish kolkhozes. Most of the children studied in a Yiddish school. In 1939 there were 2,648 Jews (15.8 of the total). The Germans entered Kazatin on July 14, 1941. They set up a ghetto. On June 4, 1942, they killed 508 Jews and another 250 in early July. In August they murdered 183, and the last 30 in December 1942. Jews returned after the war but their last synagogue was closed by the authorities in 1960. In 1970 the Jewish population was estimated at about 300 families. Most left in the emigration of the 1990s

midrash, moved to Evpatoria, and became the disciple of Abraham ben Yosef *Lutski (Aben Yashar). He started writing poems in Hebrew at an early age. He lived for a while in Kherson, where he studied secular subjects with a priest and was on friendly terms with Yekuti’el Berman, a member of the Haskalah, who introduced him to the world of modern Jewish literature. He studied at St. Petersburg University, at the faculty of Oriental Studies. After graduating, he founded in 1859 a Karaite school in Odessa. In the 1860s he taught general history and Latin in Simferopol. In 1886 he became director of the Tatar pedagogical college in Simferopol. In 1895, when the officials, after his endeavors, opened the Alexander III School for Karaite teachers and ḥ azzanim, Kazaz became its director, holding the position until 1908. He published numerous poems in Hebrew periodicals. The collections of poems appearing in book form, Shirim Aḥ adim (1857) and Yeled Sha’ashu’im (1910, Ashdod 2002), are among the few Karaite contributions to secular Hebrew literature. Later, influenced by the teachings advocated by Abraham *Firkovich, he tried to sever all connection between the *Karaites and the mainstream of Jewry. He asserted that the Karaites were not Semites, but a Tatar or *Khazar tribe which had become converted to the Jewish faith. His works include a Hebrew textbook in Tatar, Le-Regel ha-Yeladim (1868–69), intended for the Karaite youth speaking the Tatar language; Torat ha-Adam (1889), an adaptation of Eléments de morale by P. Janet (1870); Kivshono shel Olam (1889), after La religion naturelle by J. Simon (1856); Emet me-Ereẓ (1908), a shortened version of F. Vigouroux’s La Bible et les découvertes modernes en Palestine… (1879); Cicero, Ẓ iyyur Biografi (a biographical sketch; 1908). He also translated the Karaite prayer book entitled Ketoret Tamid into Russian (1905). The Russian authorities regarded him as the official Karaite representative. Bibliography: B. Elyashevich, Materialy k serii narody i kultury XIV, kn. 2 (1993), 79–82; S. Poznański, in: ZHB, 13 (1909), 117–8, 146, 148; 14 (1910), 114; Reshumot, 1 (1925), 476–83; R. Fahn, Sefer haKara’im (1929), 138ff., MGWJ, 74 (1930), 141–4. [Isaak Dov Ber Markon / Golda Akhiezer (2nd ed.)]

KAZAZ, ELIJAH BEN ELIJAH (1832–1912), important Karaite public figure and pedagogue, a member of the Haskalah. Born in Armyansk, Crimea, he studied there in a bet

KAZDAN, Ḥ AYYIM SOLOMON (Shlomo; 1883–1979), Yiddish educator, editor, and essayist. A teacher in Yiddish schools in Eastern Europe, Kazdan began his career in 1902 as a teacher in the Girls’ Professional School in his native Kherson (Ukraine). As contributor to pedagogical journals, textbook writer, supervisor of schools and classroom teacher, he advanced the teaching of Yiddish language and literature. Kazdan was active in Jewish Socialist circles in Kherson, Kiev, and Warsaw. In the 1930s, he was the director of C.Y.S.O. (Central Yiddish School Organization) in Warsaw. He was a key figure among those educators who believed that Yiddish was not only an educational means but also an end in itself. Fleeing the Nazis, Kazdan arrived in the U.S. in 1941, where for more than a decade he was instructor at the Workmen’s Circle high school (“mitlshul”), and from 1955 professor of Yiddish language and literature at the Jewish Teachers Seminary.

44

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

[Yehuda Slutsky / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]

kaẒ in, raphael ben elijah

The author of many books and monographs, his major works are: In di Teg fun Revolutsye (“In the Days of the Revolution,” 1928); In Eyner a Shtot (“Once in a City,” 1928); Di Geshikhte fun Yidishn Shulvezn in Umophengikn Poyln (“The History of the Jewish School System in Independent Poland,” 1947); and Fun Kheyder un Shkoles biz Tsisho (“From Kheyder and Shkoles to Tsisho,” 1956). Bibliography: Rejzen, Leksikon, 3 (1929), 413–7. Add. Bibliography: LNYL, 8 (1981), 36–38. [Judah Pilch]

KAZIMIERZ (Kuzhmir), ḥ asidic dynasty, especially known for their development of ḥ asidic melody. Its founder, EZEKIEL BEN ẓ EVI-HIRsCH TAUB OF KAZIMIERZ (d. 1856), was the disciple of *Jacob Isaac ha-Ḥ ozeh of Lublin and of other ḥ asidic leaders. He began as a merchant in his home town of Plonsk, and eventually settled in Kazimierz, where he established himself as a ẓ addik. He became celebrated for his musical gifts, and composed numerous ḥ asidic melodies characterized by joyful lyricism. He used to say: “I do not feel the delight of Sabbath without a new melody.” His sermons were collected in Neḥ mad mi-Zahav (1909). DAVID ẓ EVI OF NEUSTADT (d. 1882) Ezekiel’s eldest son, and one of the outstanding disciples of Menahem Mendel Morgenstern of Kotsk, founded the ḥ asidic dynasty of Yablonov. His sermons are collected in Ḥ emdat Dodo (1930). His grandson EZEKIEL OF YABLONOV founded the Naḥ alat Ya’akov society in 1924, and in the following year settled in Ereẓ Israel at the head of a group of Ḥ asidim. They established an agricultural settlement, Naḥ alat Ya’akov, at the western approaches to the Jezreel Valley (later part of *Kefar Ḥ asidim). SAMUEL ELIJAH TAUB OF ZWOLEN (d. 1888), also a son of Ezekiel, like his father had musical gifts, but as a ẓ addik suppressed this bent and led the prayers only on rare occasions. He said: “In every melody there is a soul, and a spirit is breathed into it by the singer-creator; within the melody there is both youth and old age; it is like a living being, and therefore whoever subtracts a note from or adds to it is as though he harms, as it were, the 248 organs of the human body.” His son, MOSES AARON TAUB OF NOWY DWOR (d. 1918), succeeded his father, first at Zwolen and later at Nowy Dwor near Warsaw. ḥ AYYIM JERAHMEEL TAUB (d. 1942), son of Moses Aaron, lived in Zwolen, Mlawa, and finally Warsaw; he headed a ḥ asidic community and composed ḥ asidic melodies. He perished in *Treblinka. ELEAZAR SOLOMON BEN EPHRAIM TAUB (d. 1938), of Wolomin, the grandson of the first Ezekiel, moved to Warsaw during World War I. He also possessed musical gifts.

reputation as a book reviewer for the New York Herald Tribune and as an editor for The New Republic and other newspapers and periodicals. His first and best-known work, On Native Grounds (1942), was an explication of modern American literature, studying the estrangement of the American writer from American culture. His critical articles and reviews have been collected in a number of books, including Contemporaries (1962). His autobiographical reflections can be found in A Walker in the City (1951), Starting Out in the Thirties (1965), and New York Jew (1978). They are also descriptions of the generation which grew up in the depression years and matured under the impact of the Spanish Civil War and Nazism. A Lifetime Burning Every Moment (1996) consists of selections from his journals. In his Writing Was Everything (1995), Kazin reflected on his literary heritage and life. Kazin also edited works by William Blake (1946), and others on Dreiser and Emerson. Together with A. Birstein he edited The Works of Anne Frank (1959). Add. Bibliography: T. Solotaroff (ed.), Alfred Kazin’s America: Critical and Personal Writings (2003). [Milton Henry Hindus / Lewis Fried (2nd ed.)]

KAẒ IN, JUDAH BEN YOM TOV (1708–1783), rabbi and halakhic authority of *Aleppo, whose rabbinical office he filled for many years. Kaẓ in was involved in the controversy which broke out among the rabbis of Aleppo over the imposition of the authority of the local rabbis on the “Francos” (Jewish merchants of Western European origin who arrived in Aleppo during the late 17t century). The chief rabbi Raphael Solomon *Laniado demanded that the local customs be imposed on them, while the rabbis of Aleppo, led by Kaẓ in, were opposed to this. During his last years he wrote Maḥ aneh Yehudah (Leghorn, 1803), which includes his arguments concerning this controversy and the approbations of the rabbis of Aleppo and *Jerusalem. It appears that with the deaths of Laniado and Kaẓ in at the end of the 18t century the dispute subsided. Kaẓ in also wrote responsa, which form the first part of the work Ro’ei Yisrael (1904), and sermons, Ve-Zot li-Yhudah (still in Ms.). Bibliography: M.D. Gaon, Yehudei ha-Mizraḥ be-Ereẓ Yisrael, 2 (1937), 630; D.Z. Laniado, Li-Kedoshim Asher ba-Areẓ , 1 (1952), 32; A. Lutzky, in: Zion, 6 (1940/41), 73–79. [Abraham David]

KAZIN, ALFRED (1915–1998), U.S. author, critic, and editor. Born to immigrants and educated in New York, Kazin pointed out that he was temperamentally drawn to the idea of revolution and social transformation. Kazin first made his

KAẒ IN, RAPHAEL BEN ELIJAH (1818–1871), rabbi of Baghdad. Kaẓ in was born in Aleppo. On the death of his father he left his birthplace, visiting Ereẓ Israel and Persia, and in 1846 went to Baghdad as a “self-appointed emissary.” He was an outstanding scholar and accomplished speaker. At that time the av bet din in Baghdad was Elijah Obadiah b. Abraham haLevi, who had come from Ereẓ Israel. With the arrival of Kaẓ in a violent controversy arose which split the community. Most of the wealthy men sought to depose Obadiah and appoint Kaẓ in in his place, while most of the rabbis supported Obadiah. So deep-seated was the animosity that was engendered between

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

45

Bibliography: M.S. Geshuri, Neginah ve-Ḥ asidut (1952). [Avraham Rubinstein]

kaẒ ir Ḥ arish

the rival factions that for many years they did not even intermarry. Finally the supporters of Obadiah triumphed and in 1847 Kaẓ in left Baghdad. He went to Constantinople where he succeeded in obtaining a firman from the sultan appointing him ḥ akham bashi (“chief rabbi”) of Baghdad, an office that previously did not exist. He filled this office from 1849 to 1852, and according to *Benjamin II he exercised his authority with firmness. Four soldiers were stationed as guards at the entrance of his house and when he went out he was preceded by five Jews in uniform carrying scepters in their hands, as was the custom for nobles at that time. In 1852 the “Obadiah faction” rose to power and Kaẓ in was compelled to return to Aleppo. There is no information available on the activities of Kaẓ in after his return to Aleppo. Three of his seven works have been published: Iggeret Maggid Meẓ arim (1837), an appeal to the Jews of Europe to come to the aid of the Jews of Persia, and two polemics against Christianity, Derekh ha-Ḥ ayyim (1848) and Likkutei Amarim (second ed. 1855, with a Ladino translation). His other works, including a third polemic on Christianity, Derekh Emet, are in manuscript. Bibliography: A. Ben-Jacob, Yehudei Bavel (1965), 156–61. [Abraham Ben-Yaacob]

KAẒ IR Ḥ ARISH (Heb. ‫) ָק ִציר ָח ִר ׁיש‬, urban community in northern Israel. Kaẓ ir Ḥ arish is located in the eastern hills of Wadi ‘Arra, and is an amalgamation of two settlements, with an area of 2.3 sq. mi. (6 sq. km.). Kaẓ ir was established as a community in 1982 by a group *Hitaḥ dut ha-Ikkarim (Farmers Association) settlers, with assistance from the *Jewish Agency. Ḥ arish was established as a kibbutz by Ha-Kibbutz ha-Artzi, also with the assistance of the Jewish Agency, southwest of Kaẓ ir. Neither settlement succeeded in expanding as expected. In the beginning of the 1990s, Kaẓ ir numbered just 30 families, while Ḥ arish was abandoned by its founders in 1993. But with the mass immigration of the 1990s, Kaẓ ir and Ḥ arish were selected to be included in the “star plan” aimed at populating settlements bordering on Judea and Samaria. In 1992 the government decided to unite the two settlements in a single municipal council. In 2002 its population was 3,500. The majority of the residents work outside the settlement, mainly in Ḥ aderah, Haifa, and Tel Aviv.

agement it published Herzl’s diary, Dubnow’s history, the Juedisches Lexikon, the works of Aḥ ad ha-Am, and other important Jewish works. In 1937 Kaznelson immigrated to Ereẓ Israel and took up residence in Jerusalem. While still in Germany he began his scientific-literary project on the role of the Jews in German culture. Part of this work was published during his lifetime; the rest was published posthumously as Juden im deutschen Kulturbereich (19623), Beethovens ferne und unsterbliche Geliebte (1954); Juedisches Schicksal in deutschen Geschichten (anthology, 1959); The Palestine Problem and its Solution (1946); and Zionismus und Voelkerbund (1922). Bibliography: F. Weltsch, in: Haaretz (April 3, 1959); idem, in: MB (Mar. 26, 1954); Juedischer Verlag, Almanach: 1902–1964 (1964). [Getzel Kressel]

KAẒ RIN (Heb. ‫) ָק ְצ ִרין‬, urban community in the *Golan Heights. Kaẓ rin was established in 1977 following the government’s decision to settle and populate the Golan Heights. In 1979 the town received municipal status. It was planned as an urban center that would provide a variety of services to the rural communities and military bases scattered throughout the Golan. At the end of 2002 the population of Kaẓ rin was 6,280, among them 30 immigrants from the former Soviet Union. The town has an area of 4.7 sq. mi. (12.2 sq. km.). Its industrial area includes the Golan Heights Wineries and the Eden natural mineral water bottling plants, making it “the city of water and wine.” In addition, Kaẓ rin’s industries include dairy, plastic, and electronics factories. The town has an academic center, which includes the Ohalo Teachers Training College, a branch of Haifa University, and a branch of the Open University. The Museum of Golan Antiquities exhibits archeological finds. The town’s name is derived from the ancient talmudic village of Qasrin, which was destroyed in an earthquake 1,300 years ago. The remains of the ancient synagogue and other buildings are open to the public. Website: www.qatzrin.muni.il. [Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KAZNELSON, SIEGMUND (1893–1959), publisher and editor. Born in Warsaw, Kaznelson completed his studies at the German University in Prague. During his student days, he began publication of articles on Jewish and Zionist subjects in Die Welt and Selbstwehr, the Zionist periodical of Prague which he edited during World War I. After the war, he moved to Berlin, where he first worked on the editorial staff of M. *Buber’s monthly, Der Jude. From 1920 he managed the Juedischer Verlag publishing house, which he developed into the largest publishing house of German Jewry. Under his man-

KAZVIN, a town situated between *Teheran and the Caspian Sea. The name of the town is probably related to the word “Caspian.” *Benjamin of Tudela (1167) mentions the existence of Jews in mountains and areas adjacent to Kazvin. The local tradition relates that in the “Imām mosque” in Kazvin are buried the biblical friends of the prophet Daniel, namely Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. Kazvin for some time was the capital city of the first Safavids. Later, Shah *Abbās I made *Isfahan the capital (1588). However, Jews continued to live in Kazvin, and it is known that around 1746 Nāder Shah transferred many Jews from the city and its neighborhood to the northeast of *Iran. According to Levy at the beginning of the 19t century there were 6,000 Jews in Kazvin. According to Neumark some Jewish families of Kabul in *Afghanistan originated from Kazvin. He avers that there were no Jews living in Kazvin in his time (1884). According to the unpublished

46

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Website: www.cityindex.co.il. [Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

kazyonny ravvin

memoirs of Solayman Cohen-Sedeq, a prominent Iranian Jew, reported by Levy (p. 1029), there were in 1876 in Kazvin 11 Jewish families who had two synagogues. Most of them were immigrants from *Kashan and *Hamadan. Israeli contracting firms were active in Iran, particularly in reconstruction and development works in the area of Kazvin, which suffered heavily from an earthquake in 1962. It has been reported that Kazvin ceased to be a dwelling place of Jewish families some time during the 20t century.

KAZYONNY RAVVIN (Rus. “an official rabbi”; Heb. expression, rav mi-ta’am), title of the officials elected by the communities of Russia between 1857 and 1917 in accordance with the instructions of the government. Their official function was “to supervise public prayers and religious ceremonies so that the permanent regulations be respected; to regularize the laws of the Jews and clarify the problems connected with them; to educate them in the true spirit of the law.” In practice the “official rabbis” represented their communities before the authorities. They delivered patriotic speeches, mostly in Russian, on festivals and on the birthdays of the czars. They supervised Jewish government schools, administered the oath to those who had been enlisted into the Russian army, and kept the records of births, marriages, and deaths in their communities. The institution of kazyonny ravvin was linked with the attempts of the Russian government to influence and control Jewish communal activities. As early as in the “Jewish constitution” of 1804 it was stated that, as from 1812, only those who could read and write Russian, Polish, or German would be authorized to officiate as rabbis. In the “Jewish legislation” of 1835, the rabbis’ functions were defined as “to guide the Jews in the fulfillment of their moral duties, the observance of the state’s laws, and obedience to the authorities.” The rabbi was to officiate at circumcision, marriage, and burial ceremonies, and keep the records of births and deaths. In 1836, when the government decided to censor the books of the Jews, the task was imposed on the rabbis of the large communities, to whom books were presented for inspection by their owners. With the growth of the Haskalah movement, the maskilim began to call for the appointment of rabbis who had a general education also. Projects were advanced for the establishment of a body of official rabbis after the example of the *Consistory in France. It soon became evident, however, that there were no men suitable for such positions among the Russian Jews. The suggestion of inviting “enlightened” rabbis from Western Europe was rejected on political grounds. As an exception, the election of “enlightened” rabbis was approved for Riga (Abraham Neumann, 1854) and Odessa (Simeon Aryeh *Schwabacher, 1860). In 1847 two government seminaries for the training of rabbis in the spirit of Haskalah were established in Vilna and Zhitomir, financed from the revenues of

the *candle tax. In 1857, on the occasion of the graduation of the first classes of these institutions, a law was passed which declared that henceforward the Jewish communities were only to “appoint such rabbis who had completed their studies in the government seminaries, and the government Jewish schools of the second grade, the general schools, high, secondary, or district schools.” The application of the law encountered opposition from the communities. Poor salaries were granted to the rabbis thus appointed, and since they were dependent on reelection by their communities every few years their influence was insignificant. The maskilim called on the government to impose the election of such rabbis on the communities or to appoint them itself and pay their salaries so that they should be independent of their congregants. These demands, which were at times supported by the local authorities, were rejected by the central government with the argument that they contradicted the fundamental right of the Jewish communities to elect their own rabbis. The government rabbinical seminaries did not achieve their objective, and in 1873 were closed down and converted into government schools for Jewish teachers. In practice, every Jew who had completed six, or even four classes of a Russian secondary school could present his candidature for the post of kazyonny ravvin. The Jewish communities generally regarded the institution of official rabbis with hostility and endeavored to restrict their activities as far as possible. On many occasions, men without any knowledge of Judaism and its contents were appointed to this position, which they merely considered a sinecure. At times, even the moral conduct of the incumbents of this office was doubtful. The true religious influence within the communities continued to be wielded by the rabbis of the traditional style whom the Russian government recognized, though not officially, under the title of “spiritual rabbis.” Jewish folklore abounds in descriptions of the official rabbi as covetous, an ignoramus, and one who despises the values of the Jewish religion. Their connections with the authorities, and at times even with secret police, occasionally led them to be suspected as informers. At the same time, the official rabbinate became a source of livelihood for many Jewish maskilim, some of whom elevated this function to the level of a valuable public service (Z.S. Minor, in Minsk and later in Moscow; A.A. Pumpianski, in Riga; J.L. *Kantor, in Libava (Liepaja), Vilna, and Riga; J. *Mazeh, in Moscow; H.Y. Katzenelson, in Oriol; I.B. *Levner, in Lugansk; S.Z. Luria, in Kiev; and also *Shalom Aleichem, in Lubny, 1880–83). With the growth of nationalism and Zionism, Zionist circles, with the slogan “Conquest of the Communities,” attempted to convert the function of kazyonny ravvin into a channel for nationalist influence, and in many communities leaders and activists of the movement were elected to this office through the influence of the Zionists. They attempted to influence their communities in a nationalist direction, to strengthen Jewish education, and to educate the youth and bring it nearer to Judaism. This was a thankless func-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

47

Bibliography: M.D. Adler (ed.), The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela (1907); H. Levy, History of the Jews of Iran, 3 (1960); E. Neumark, Massa be-Ereẓ ha-Kedem, ed. by A. Ya’ari, 1947. [Amnon Netzer (2nd ed.)]

kecskemet

tion, however, and its incumbents were compelled to tread a tightrope between the czarist authorities and their nationalist conscience. Rabbis of this category included Vladimir *Tiomkin (Yekaterinoslav), Shemariah *Levin (Grodno, Yekaterinoslav), Menahem *Sheinkin (Balta, 1901–05), Y.N. Vilenski (Nikolayev, 1903–05), and Mordecai Rabinsohn (Bobruisk). J. Mazeh, Shemariah Levin, Y.N. Vilenski, A.I. Freudenberg (Kremenchug), and Isaac *Schneersohn (Chernigov) described their public activities as official rabbis in their memoirs. Bibliography: A. Margulis, Voprosy, yevreyskoy zhizni (1889), 168–92; Yu. Hessen, in: YE, 13 (c. 1910), 226–31. [Yehuda Slutsky]

KECSKEMET (Hung. Kecskemét), city in central Hungary. The first Jews arrived there when the area was under Turkish domination in the 16t to 17t centuries. Subsequently the city came under Austrian rule. In 1715 the municipal council was requested to order the Jews attending the fairs there to do their business separately from the other merchants. In 1746 four Jewish families from Obuda (Alt-Ofen) settled in the city. At first the Jews mainly engaged in the trade of hides and feathers. Later, they organized the internationally celebrated trade of the region in cattle, poultry, preserves, alcoholic liquor, and wine. A community was established in 1801, and in 1814 the Jews were authorized to use a house which they had purchased as a synagogue. The Jews in Kecskemet were attacked during the revolution of 1848 and their shops were looted. The community was declared neologist (see *Neology) in 1868. A magnificent synagogue was erected in 1871; it was destroyed by an earthquake in 1911 but was rebuilt in 1913. A separate Orthodox community was founded in 1917. After the end of World War I, following the collapse of the brief Communist regime, the White Terror fomented pogroms in the town and eight Jewish victims lost their lives. Rabbis of Kecskemet included Simeon Fischmann, Armin Perls, later rabbi of *Pecs, Joseph Bárány, Joseph Borsodi (1916–42), and Joseph Schindler (1942–50) who, after his return from the concentration camps, continued to hold rabbinical office in the city. There was a Jewish school in the city from 1844 to 1870. In the wake of the growing antisemitism after 1930 there was an increase in Zionist activity, particularly after 1939. The Jewish population numbered 47 in 1785, 441 in 1840, 1,514 in 1869, 1,984 in 1900, 1,860 in 1920, 1,567 in 1930, and 1,346 in 1941.

documents. At the end of June, the 940 remaining Jews in the ghetto were sent to Auschwitz, from which only 150 returned. Between 1945 and 1947, there were 410 Jews living in Kecskemet, including refugees from the siege in Budapest. The Jewish population numbered 221 in 1949, 84 in 1954, and 40 in 1970. Bibliography: J. Bárány, in: IMIT, 9 (1899), 102–26; M. Sandberg, Shanah le-Ein Keẓ (1966). [Alexander Scheiber]

KECSKEMÉTI, ÁRMIN (1874–1944), Hungarian rabbi and scholar. Kecskeméti was born in Kecskemet, Hungary. He studied in Budapest at the rabbinical seminary and the university. He served as rabbi in Mako, Hungary, from 1898 to 1944 and also lectured on Jewish history at Szeged University. He died in the Strasshof concentration camp. For his studies Kecskeméti was able to use the rich library of Immanuel *Loew. Kecskeméti’s works, which were mainly popular, include A zsidó irodalom története (“History of Jewish Literature,” 2 vols., 1908–09); Azsidók egyetemes története (“Universal History of the Jews,” 2 vols., 1927); Izrael története a bibliai korban (“History of Israel in Biblical Times,” 1942); and A csanádmegyei zsidók története (“History of the Jews in the District of Csanád,” 1929), which discusses his own community, Mako. [Alexander Scheiber]

KECSKEMÉTI, GYŐRGY (1901–1944), Hungarian journalist, born in Makó, the son of Rabbi A. Kecskeméti. From 1929 to 1936 Kecskeméti taught at the Jewish secondary school of Budapest and in 1931 joined the staff of the government’s German newspaper Pester Lloyd. From 1936 he was editor in chief, and held the position in spite of anti-Jewish legislation until the Nazi occupation. He wrote a book of poems Változatok hat témára (“Variations on Six Themes”), and contributed to periodicals. When the Germans occupied Hungary, he was among the journalists deported to Auschwitz, where he died. He left several manuscripts.

Holocaust Period In May 1944, after the German invasion of Hungary (March 19, 1944), the Jews in Kecskemet were rounded up and treated with exceptional brutality by members of the SS from among the Hungarian Volksdeutsche. Their suffering was so great that 70 of them committed suicide by taking poison; 13 people were smuggled out at the last minute with the aid of forged

KECSKEMÉTI, LIPÓT (1865–1936), Hungarian rabbi and scholar. Kecskeméti was born in Kecskemét. He studied at the rabbinical seminary and the University of Budapest and at the Lehranstalt fuer die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin. He served as rabbi of Nagyvárad from 1890 to his death. Kecskeméti, a magnificent orator and a highly respected leader, was a convinced anti-Zionist and assimilationist and a Hungarian patriot, courageously resisting attempts to Romanianize Nagyvárad and the other Hungarian regions transferred to Romania after World War I. He founded a Jewish high school there. Among his published works are Zsidó költőkből (“By Jewish Poets,” 1887), an anthology of medieval Jewish poetry; his Ph.D. thesis, A pokol a középkori zsidó költészetben (“Hell in Medieval Jewish Poetry,” 1888); Egy zsidó vallás van-e, több-e? (“Is There One Jewish Religion or More?” 1913); Az

48

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kedar

izraelita vallás története (“History of Jewish Religion,” 4 vols., 1932); Jeremiás proféta és kora (“The Prophet Jeremiah and His Age,” 3 vols., 1932); Ezsajás (“Isaiah,” 3 vols., 1935); and many articles in Hungarian-Jewish periodicals. He also translated the Prophets for a Hungarian edition of the Bible.

KEDAR (Heb. ‫) ֵק ָדר‬, a nomadic tribe or league of tribes in the Arabian Desert. Kedar is mentioned in Genesis 25:3 and I Chronicles 1:29 among “the sons of Ishmael,” the latter being tribes of Arabs known from the eighth century B.C.E. onward in the desert tracts surrounding Palestine (see *Ishmaelites). The mode of life of the Kedarites, as reflected in the Bible, was associated with the rearing of sheep and camels (Isa. 60:7; Jer. 49:28–29, 32; Ezek. 27:21), and with dwelling in tents (Jer. 49:29; Ps. 120:5; Song 1:5) and in unfortified villages and camps (Isa. 42:11; Jer. 49:31). Biblical information on their locality and history is extremely scant, but many details about these are known from

other sources, in particular from inscriptions of Assyrian kings. The earliest document which refers to the Kedarites is the inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III found in Iran (unpublished). In it they are mentioned together with other nations in the west of the Fertile Crescent who surrendered to the Assyrian king and whose rulers paid him tribute in 738 B.C.E. From parallel inscriptions of Ashurbanipal it is evident that Hazail, king of the Arabs, against whom Senacherib’s army fought between 691 and 689 B.C.E. in the region of Duma (Jawf) in Wadi Sirḥ ān, and who surrendered to Esarhaddon, was the king of Kedar. Close to 652 B.C.E. the Kedarites under Uateʾ the son of Hazail, who broke his oath of allegiance to Ashurbanipal, raided the frontier regions on the western border of the Assyrian empire, but were repulsed and defeated by King Kamashtalta of Moab and by units of the Assyrian army stationed along the border from the Valley of Lebanon to Edom. Another leader who took part in these raids and is likewise described as “king of Kedar” in the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal was Ammuladi(n). Following the defeat of Uateʾ the leadership of the Kedarites passed to Abiateʾ the son of Teʾri, who in 652 B.C.E. sent soldiers to Babylon to help Shamash-shum-ukin king of Babylonia in his war against his brother Ashurbanipal. In the period of the intensive military operations of the Assyrian army in Babylonia and Elam (652–646 B.C.E.), the Kedarites under Abiateʾ and Aamu sons of Teʾri were among other units of nomads that exerted pressure on the inhabited area along the frontier of the desert, from the region of Jebel Bishrī to the vicinity of Damascus. The grave situation resulting from the pressure of the nomads compelled the king of Assyria to launch an extensive campaign against them mostly in the desert and under difficult conditions (Ashurbanipal’s ninth campaign). The information in Jeremiah 49:28ff. combined with that in the Babylonian Chronicle (BM 21946 rev. 9–10) shows that in 599 B.C.E. units of Nebuchadnezzar’s army raided the encampments of the Kedarites in the western region of the Syrian desert. With the ending of the political existence of the Transjordanian kingdoms in the first half of the sixth century B.C.E., the Kedarites together with other units of “the children of the east” penetrated to the settled country whose borders were breached. The dimensions of their expansion and the area of their operations in the west are attested by the votive inscription “‫ ”זי קרב קיני בר גשם מלך קדר להנאלת‬on a silver bowl originating from the temple of the Arab goddess Han-Ilat at Tell al-Maskhūṭa (in the neighborhood of Ismailia) at the eastern approach of Egypt. On the basis of paleographical and archaeological considerations, the bowl and the inscription have been dated to the fifth century B.C.E. Accordingly, some hold that Geshem king of Kedar is the Arab Geshem, Nehemiah’s enemy (Neh. 2:19; 6:1ff.). However the data for this identification are inconclusive. Later references to the Kedarites occur not only in inscriptions dating from the centuries close to the Common Era and found in a temple at Ma’īn in southern Arabia but also in

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

49

Bibliography: F. Fischer, Das Buch von Dr. L. Kecskeméti “Gibt es blos eine juedische Religion oder mehrere” (1934); Emlékkönyv Dr. Kecskeméti Lipót (1936). [Alexander Scheiber]

KEDAINIAI (Rus. Keidany; Yid. Kaidan), town in central Lithuania, founded during the 14t century. From 1490 the locality was ruled by the Kishkis family, which invited Jewish merchants to settle there. The town became a Calvinist center in 1560 under the rule of the princes Radziwill, and the Jews were granted civic rights and religious freedom. Jews there engaged in the import and export trades, winemaking, and moneylending. Jewish craftsmen, ritual slaughterers, butchers, and cattle dealers were organized in guilds. The community played an important economic and social role in the Council of Lithuania (see *Councils of the Lands). There were 501 Jewish poll-tax payers in the town in 1766. The rabbis of the *Katzenellenbogen family made Kedainiai a center of Jewish learning. After Kedainiai passed to Russia in 1795, the Jews there lost their specific rights. The community, which numbered 4,987 in 1847, decreased by emigration during the 1880s, and by 1897 numbered 3,733 (64 of the population). During World War I, in May 1915, the Jews were expelled from Kedainiai to the interior of Russia, but some returned after the war. There were 2,500 Jews living in Kedainiai in 1923 (33 of the population), of whom approximately 15 were engaged in the cultivation and marketing of vegetables and agricultural exports. In 1939 Jewish refugees from Poland including the scholars of the yeshivah of *Mir settled in Kedainiai. On June 24, 1941, the Germans occupied the town, executing around 325 Jews in the forests by July, and on Aug. 28, 1941, with the cooperation of the Lithuanians, the rest of the Jewish population – including 1,000 from surrounding towns – was massacred at the Smilaga Creek. Senior *Sachs and M.L. *Lilienblum were born in Kedainiai. Bibliography: B.H. Kasel, Kaidan (1930). [Dov Levin]

kedem, ora

Pliny (Historia Naturalis, 5:65), who mentions them among the peoples of northern Arabia, alongside the Nabateans. The wide dispersion of the Kedarites, extending as it did from the region of Duma (Jawf) in Wadi Sirḥ ān to Palmyrene and to the eastern port of the Nile Delta, lends probability to their having been a union of various sub-units. Evidence of the existence of such a social organization occurs in the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal, according to which Uate’ son of Hazail and Ammuladi(n) flourished at the same time and in which both are referred to as “king of Kedar.” Similarly Ezekiel 27:21 refers to “Arabia, and all the princes of Kedar.” Bibliography: A. Musil, Arabia Deserta (1927), 490–91; K. Mlaker, Die Hierodulenisten von Ma’ʿin (1943), 40; J. Rabinowitz, in: jnes, 15 (1956), 1–9. [Israel Eph’al]

KEDEM, ORA (1924– ), physical chemist. Kedem was born in Vienna and immigrated to Ereẓ Israel in 1940 as an “illegal” immigrant on the ill-fated Patria. She graduated from the Hebrew University and received her doctorate from the Weizmann Institute in 1953. Together with Prof. Aharon *Katzir she initiated the analysis of biomembrane processes in terms of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, defining the energy conversion in active transport and muscle action. In the 1960s and early 1970s she helped to found Ben-Gurion University (the University of the Negev). She founded and chaired the Department of Membrane Research at the Weizmann Institute and was scientific director of membrane products there and then of RPR). She contributed to the understanding and development of membrane processes for desalination and other separation technologies. In 1965 she was appointed associate professor in the Department of Polymer Research at the Institute and full professor in 1970. She was awarded the Israel Prize for science in 1961. [Bracha Rager (2nd ed.)]

sion, “My father was a wandering/ fugitive Aramean who migrated to Egypt” (Deut. 26:5). The Israelites acknowledged all those peoples as their kin in contrast to the Canaanites. The Kedemites enjoyed among the Israelites a great reputation for wisdom. Not only does David quote a Kedemite proverb which he characterizes as such, but the wisdom of the Kedemites is rated only lower than Solomon’s though higher than that of the Egyptians (I Kings 5:10), and Isaiah represents the Egyptian king’s wise men as seeking to impress him by claiming descent from sages of Kedem (this, not “of old,” is the meaning of qedem in Isa. 19:11). A wise instruction by the mother of a Kedemite king, *Lemuel, to her royal son is preserved, according to the superscription, in Proverbs 31:1–9; for Massa is the name of an Ishmaelite tribe (Gen. 25:14; on the Aramaizing diction, see *Job). *Agur son of Jakeh was doubtless of the same nationality as Lemuel, according to Proverbs 30:1, where ha-massa’i, “the Massaite,” is to be read. The reputed wisdom of the Edomites (included among the Kedemites in Isa. 11:14) is alluded to in Jeremiah 49:7; Obadiah 7 end, 8. Add. Bibliography: M. Cogan, I Kings (AB; 2000), 220. [Harold Louis Ginsberg]

KEDEMOTH (Heb. ‫ ְק ֵדמֹת‬, ‫) ְק ֵדמוֹ ת‬, city and desert E. of the Jordan. It was from the wilderness of Kedemoth that Moses sent messengers to Sihon, the Amorite king of Heshbon, asking for peaceful passage through his lands, and was refused. The city of Kedemoth is mentioned among the cities of the tribe of Reuben together with Jahaz and Mephaath (Josh. 13:18); “Kedemoth with the open land about it” was a levitical city of the tribe (I Chron. 6:64). The identification proposed for the wilderness of Kedemoth is the desert east of the settled area of Moab where the Arnon River begins. The city of Kedemoth has been identified with one of the tells in the adjoining cultivated area, either Qaṣ r al-Zaʾfarān or Khirbat al-Rumayl. Both mounds have upper Nabatean levels followed by Early Iron Age strata; Khirbat alRumayl also contains the remains of a large Moabite fortress.

KEDEMITES OR EASTERNERS (Heb. ‫( ְ ּבנֵ י ֶק ֶדם‬benei kedem, bene qedem), adjective qadmoni, ‫ ; ַק ְדמֹנִ י‬Gen. 15:19) is a general designation for the peoples living on the eastern border of Syria and Palestine, from as far north as Haran (Gen. 29:1–4) to as far south as the northern end of the Red Sea (Gen. 25:1–6). In Israelite ethnology, all these peoples, and the Ishmaelites as well, who ranged from the border of Egypt to Assyria (i.e., the Middle Euphrates), and who included the inhabitants of Tema and Dumah (Gen. 25:12–18), were all related. Their center of dispersion was the Middle Euphrates region – called Aram-Naharaim (Gen. 24:10; Deut. 23:5), Paddan-Aram (Gen. 28:2, 5, 6, 7; 31:18 (or Paddan, Gen. 48:7)), “the country Aram” (Hos. 12:13), or simply Aram (Num. 23:7). From here Abraham and Lot moved to Canaan (Gen. 12:5). Lot eventually moved to Transjordan and became the ancestor of Moab and Ammon (Gen. 19:30ff.), while Abraham became the ancestor of all the other Kedemites, including the Ishmaelites, and of the Israelites as well. His son Isaac and the latter’s son Jacob-Israel married wives from Abraham’s original homeland, where Jacob even lived for 20 years. Hence the confes-

KEDUSHAH (Heb. ‫) ְק ֻד ּׁ ָשה‬. The biblical term for holiness is kodesh; mishnaic Hebrew, kedushah, and that which is regarded as holy is called kadosh. Jewish exegetes, following early rabbinic interpretation (Sifra) of Leviticus 19:2: “You shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy,” have consistently taken the verb kadesh to mean “distinguished, set apart.” The Sifra paraphrases the command with the words “You shall be set apart” (Heb. perushim). The traditional interpretation coincides with the findings of modern phenomenologists of religion who describe the holy as “the wholly other” and as that which is suffused with a numinous quality. The latter is both majestic and fearsome (The Idea of the Holy, Rudolph Otto, 1923, ch. 8) or to use the term Otto popularized, “the mysterium tremendum.”

50

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: Glueck, in: basor, 65 (1937), 27; Press, Ereẓ , S.V.; Aharoni, Land, index. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

kedushah

General Considerations The concept of holiness, because of its centrality in the Bible, affords an excellent illustration of how the biblical authors, under the dominance of the monotheistic idea, radically refashioned, in whole or part, notions of the sacred in the religions of the Near East. In primitive Semitic religions, as in primitive religions generally, the holy is considered an intrinsic, impersonal, neutral quality inherent in objects, persons, rites, and sites, a power charged with contagious efficacy and, therefore, taboo. Seldom is the quality of holiness ascribed to the deity. In biblical religion, on the contrary, holiness expresses the very nature of God and it is He who is its ultimate source and is denominated the Holy One. Objects, persons, sites, and activities that are employed in the service of God derive their sacred character from that relationship. The extrinsic character of the holy is reflected in the fact that by consecrating objects, sites, and persons to God, man renders them holy. Further, since holiness is conceived as the very essence of God, biblical religion, in both the priestly and prophetic writings, incorporates moral perfection as an essential aspect of holiness, though by no means its total content. Therefore, unlike contemporary ancient Near East religions, biblical Judaism does not confine the sacred to the sphere of the cult. God’s moral perfection and purpose is not in static terms alone but in its redemptive acts in history. Indeed, holiness, since it is derived from God, is related to the realm of nature, history, human experience and conduct as well as to the election of Israel and the covenant. “The energy with which from the time of Moses onward the person of the divine Lord concentrates all religious thought and activity upon himself gives even the statements about holiness an essentially different background from that which they possess in the rest of the Near East” (Theology of the Old Testament, Walther Eichrodt, 1961, vol. 1, p. 271). Finally, since pagan religions regard holiness as a mysterious intrinsic power with which certain things, persons, locales, and acts are charged, the division between the realms of the holy and the profane are permanently, unalterably fixed. In fact, the latter represents an ever-present danger to the former. By contrast, biblical religion looks forward to the universal extension of the realm of the holy in the end of days so as to embrace the totality of things and persons. While biblical religion recognizes an area of the profane (“impure”) as capable of defiling and polluting the sacred, nowhere does it regard the former as possessing a threatening dangerous potency. The following elements of the concept of holiness are, however, held by the Bible in common with other ancient Near Eastern religions: (1) the concept of the mortal danger involved in unauthorized approach to or contact with the sacred; (2) the notion of various degrees of holiness; and (3) the contagious, communicable character of the sacred. In the words of Eichrodt: “The whole system of taboo is pressed into the service of a loftier idea of God” (ibid., p. 274). The following sections offer specific and varied biblical illustrations of the general considerations set forth above.

The Holiness of God Seeking to express the ineffable holiness of God, an ultimate category, the biblical authors drew on a vast and varied series of predicates. With the single exception of God’s moral perfection and action, they all fall within the scope of the “mysterium tremendum.” The most frequent is “fearsome,” “awesome,” (Heb. nora; Ps. 89:7, 8; 99:3; 111:9). A site at which a theophany has been experienced is described as “awesome” and induces in the visioner a state of fear (Gen. 28:17). God’s works are called “fearful” (Ex. 15:11; 34:10; Ps. 66:3, 5). This aspect of the divine holiness and man’s attitude toward it are perhaps best summed up in the verse (I Sam. 6:20), “Who is able to stand before the Lord, the Holy God?” In several passages, e.g., Joshua 24:19, God’s fearful, unapproachable holiness is equated with His jealousy, His unrelenting demand for exclusive virtue. The fearful aspect of the divine holiness is reflected in the warning to keep one’s distance from the outward manifestation of the divine presence (Ex. 3:5; 19:12, 13, 23; Num. 18:3; Josh. 5:15). To gaze directly upon the divine manifestation or even upon the sacred vessels when the latter are not in actual use may cause death (Ex. 33:20; Num. 4:20; 18:13; Judg. 13:22; I Kings 19:13). God is “glorious in holiness” (Ex. 15:11); His holiness is unique (I Sam. 2:2); His “way” is that of holiness (Ps. 77:14). Preeminently, it is the divine name which is characterized as holy since the name of God expresses His essence (Lev. 20:3; 22:2, 32; Ps. 103:1; 105:3; 145:21; I Chron. 16:10). Noteworthy is Ezekiel’s repeated use of the phrase “My Holy Name.” To Isaiah, we owe the appellation of God as the “Holy One of Israel” (Isa. 1:4; 5:19, 24; 10:20; 12:6; 17:7; 29:23; 30:12, 15; 31:1; 37:23). The term is employed even more consistently by Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 41:14; 43:3, 14; 45:11; 47:4; 48:15; 49:7; 54:5; 60:14). It appears once in Jeremiah (50:29) and in Psalms (71:22). Isaiah’s tendency to characterize God as the “Holy One of Israel” may be assumed to derive from the divine call to the prophet (ch. 6) in which he hears the dramatic thrice-repeated proclamation of the seraphim (the trisagion) of “Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of Hosts, the whole earth is full of His glory” (6:3). In this encounter, in the presence of the absolute holiness of God – the apparent intention of the dramatic repetition – the prophet is overcome by an acute sense of his own sinfulness and that of the people among whom he dwells (v. 5). The passage clearly implies, and indeed emphasizes, the moral aspect of God’s holiness. However, it is erroneous to assert, as is frequently done, that the interpretation of the divine holiness as essentially an expression of God’s moral perfection is the unique contribution of the prophets. Distinctly priestly writers associate God’s holiness with moral qualities. This is to be seen in the so-called Holiness Code (Lev. 17–26). In priestly law (Lev. 19) the purely ritualistic aspects of holiness are combined with distinctly moral injunctions. Priestly liturgy (Ps. 15; 24:3–6) stresses that only he who “has clean hands and a pure heart” can stand on God’s holy mountain (Ps. 24:3, 4). The prophets deepen and broaden the moral dimension of the divine holi-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

51

kedushah

ness. For Amos (2:7) oppression of the poor and sexual profligacy are tantamount to the profanation of God’s holy name. For Hosea, divine compassion constitutes a basic element in God’s holiness (Hos. 11:8f.), and the prophet insists on purity of heart and a radical break with moral offense as preconditions for any intimacy with the holy God. For Isaiah, it is righteousness that sanctifies the holy God (5:16). Deutero-Isaiah conceives of God’s holiness as active in the realm of history as a redemptive power. The “Holy One of Israel” is the redeemer of Israel (Isa. 41:14; 43:3, 14; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7; 54:15). Divine holiness is thus conceived less as a state of being than as an expression of the fulfillment of divine purpose. It manifests itself in divine judgment and destruction (Isa. 1:4–9; 5:13, 16; 30:8–14; Ezek. 28:22; 36:20–32) as well as in divine mercy and salvation (Isa. 10:20–23; 12:6; 17:7–9; 29:19–21). For Ezekiel, God manifests His holiness in the sight of the nations (20:31; 28:25; 36:23; 38:23), when He vindicates Himself as supreme Lord of the world. Fire as Symbol of God’s Holiness Perhaps the ambivalent effects of fire, at once warming and creative yet consuming and destructive, suggested it as an apt symbol of the divine holiness, itself conceived as essentially polar in effect (see below). Whatever the origin of fire as a symbol for the sacred, its employment in the Bible is as vast as it is varied. Only some of the passages in which it is associated with holiness can be cited here (Ex. 3:2, 3; 19:18; 24:17; Deut. 4:12, 24; 5:22–27; 9:3; Ezek. 1:4–28; Hab. 3:3, 4). Repeatedly in the laws and practices of the cult, fire imagery is used in those passages that emphasize holiness (Lev. 2:3, 9, 10; 6:16–18; 7:3–5). The Transitive Effects of God’s Holiness As stated above, whatever or whoever is engaged in the service of God and therefore stands in intimate relationship with Him becomes endowed with holiness. Essentially, that which brings man or things or locales into the realm of the holy is God’s own activity or express command. The nation is sanctified and commanded to be holy since it has entered into a covenant relationship with the holy God (Ex. 19:6; Lev. 11:44ff.; 19:2; 20:7; Deut. 7:6; 26:19). The *Ark of the Covenant is holy since it is regarded as the throne of the invisible God. Though the phrase “Holy Ark” (Heb. Aron Kodesh) is not found in the Bible, numerous contexts indicate that it was regarded as sacred as were all the vessels employed in the *tabernacle, as well, of course, as the sanctuary itself. The prophet, having been summoned and consecrated to God’s service, is looked upon as a holy man (II Kings 4:9). Initially, it is God who ordains the holy seasons and places – “And God blessed the seventh day and declared it holy” (Gen. 2:3). But the Sabbath, having been declared holy, must be sanctified by Israel (Ex. 20:8; Deut. 5:12; Jer. 17:22; Neh. 13:22). In the case of the *festivals, the divine declaration is joined with the injunction that they should be proclaimed: “These are my fixed times, the fixed time of the Lord, which you shall proclaim as sacred

52

occasions” (Lev. 23:21). Likewise, it is God who sanctifies the Tent of Meeting, the altar, Aaron and his sons (Ex. 29:43) but each of these undergoes rites of consecration performed by humans (see Ex. 29 for the description of the elaborate rites of consecration of Aaron and his sons). War, since it is carried out under the aegis of God as “Man of War” (Ex. 13:3), is service rendered to Him. In his martial activity, the warrior enters the sphere of the holy and becomes subject to the particular prohibitions incumbent upon those directly involved in that sphere (I Sam. 21:5–7; II Sam. 11:11). This concept serves as the basis for the verbal usage “to consecrate war” (Heb. kiddesh milḥ amah; Micah 3:5; Jer. 6:4). Frequently, the enemy’s goods and chattels are declared banned (Heb. ḥ erem); that is to say, banned from human use. For the priestly biblical authors, the concept of holiness, as might be expected, finds its focus in the realm of the cult and everything involved in it. Accordingly, there is mention of “holy garments” (Ex. 28:2, 4; 29:21; 31:10); “holy offerings” (Ex. 28:36; Lev. 19:8); the “holy priestly crown” (Ex. 29:6; 39:30); “holy flesh” (Ex. 29:37); “holy anointing oil” (Ex. 30:31–37); the “holy tabernacle” and its furnishings (Ex. 40:9); “holy fruit” (Lev. 19:24); and “holy food” (Lev. 22:14). The Polarity of Holiness As has been noted, the concept of God’s holiness is rooted in a basic polarity; the quality of holiness is majestic and hence attractive, and yet it remains fearsome. It is, therefore, no cause for wonder that this polarity finds expression in both the rituals and objects of holiness. In the law of the “red heifer,” whereby the ashes of the sacrificial victim are used in a rite to purify one who has become defiled through contact with a corpse, the priest who ministers the rite becomes defiled (Num. 19:8–10; Lev. 16:26–28). This polarity is to be discerned in several biblical episodes describing an improper entrance into the inner precincts of the sanctuary. Here, in the holy of holies, the ritual of expiation is carried out. Yet, when *Nadab and *Abihu, the sons of Aaron, bring “strange fire” into the inner sanctuary, they are consumed by divine fire (Lev. 10:1–11; cf. Num. 16–17; II Sam. 6:6; cf. the warning in Ex. 19:10ff.). The idea that holiness can be conveyed by mere touch or intimate approach is illustrated in various biblical passages. Those, for instance, who come in physical contact with the altar automatically become holy (Ex. 29:37; 30:29; Lev. 6:11, 20). The notion is likewise reflected in the divine command that the vessels used by *Korah and his company were to be added to the altar as an outer covering because, once having been brought “into God’s presence,” they had become holy (Num. 17:2). Holiness and Glory Glory (Heb. kavod) is intimately associated with God’s holiness and signifies the self-manifesting presence of God, whereas holiness (Heb. kodesh) is expressive of God’s transcendence (Ex. 14:4f.; Lev. 10:3; Num. 20:13; Ezek. 20:41), though the polar concepts of holiness and glory are strikingly joined

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kedushah

by Isaiah – “Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of Hosts, His glory fills the whole earth” (6:3). The hope that the divine glory will fill the whole earth takes on a messianic tinge in Numbers 14:21. The latter is conceptually linked with Zechariah 14:20, 21. There, in a messianic prophecy, Zechariah anticipates the day when even the bells of the horses will be engraved with the legend “Holy unto the Lord” as well as every pot in Jerusalem and Judah. The ultimate extension of the sphere of the holy so that it will embrace even the mundane and profane underscores the biblical concept of holiness not as a natural, inherent quality, but rather as a quality conferred both by God and man. This aspect of holiness in the messianic age is reflected in the prophet Joel’s promise that prophecy – an endowment of holiness – will become a gift possessed by young and old, by servants and handmaids (3:1,2). [Theodore Friedman]

Comparative Considerations The derivation of the common Semitic root q-d-š is still uncertain. It has been suggested that it means “pure, brilliant, dazzling,” or the like, but this is questionable, tempting though it is, and no theory as to the character of holiness may legitimately be based on this alleged meaning. More important than etymology, is the actual history of the terms “holiness,” and “holy.” The comparative evidence suggests that nominal and adjectival forms of the root q-d-š were first used in professional titles given to various types of priests and priestesses. Usage was subsequently expanded to apply to divine beings, holy persons, sacred places, cultic objects, and to rites and celebrations. Finite verbal forms were used to convey the process of consecration by which holiness could be attributed; especially kiddesh (qiddesh), “to consecrate,” and its derivatives, in biblical Hebrew. Beginning in the Old Babylonian period the title qadištu (Heb. kedeshah (qedeshah)) designates a class of priestesses. It should be noted, however, that the same term, both in Akkadian and in Hebrew, can mean “prostitute, harlot,” in contexts where no cultic associations are overtly evident (cf. Gen. 38:16, 21–22, where kedeshah (qedeshah) alternates with zonah, “harlot”). This connotation probably relates to the institution of temple prostitution, or at least to the orgiastic rites often associated with fertility cults. In Deuteronomy 23:18 and Hosea 4:14 the term kedeshah (qedeshah) is clearly related to the cult. The masculine plural qdšm, “priests, cultic servitors,” occurs in Ugaritic administrative lists, so that there are precursors to both kadesh (qadesh), the masculine, as well as kedeshah (qedeshah), the feminine, in biblical Hebrew. Ugaritic yields additional relevant evidence: the Ugaritic mqdšt parallels the Hebrew mikdash (miqdash, “temple, sanctuary”), and the Ugaritic qdš, like the Hebrew kodesh (qodesh), means “holiness; sanctuary.” There can be little doubt, therefore, that the biblical kadesh (qadesh, qedeshim) designates a cultic function, as the biblical evidence itself strongly indicates (cf. Deut. 23:18; I Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:47; II Kings 23:7). Another line

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

of comparative inquiry relates to the Ugaritic designation bn qdš (“son (s) of holiness,” i.e., “deities, divine beings”), which occurs in parallelism with ilm (“gods”). In this connection Aramaic yields qdšm, “gods,” and bʿl qdšn, “chief of the gods.” The connotation “deity, divine being” is preserved in usages of the Hebrew kadosh (qadosh) which, in addition to serving as an adjective, may be a substantive. Thus in Hosea 11:9, kadosh (qadosh) is parallel to eʾl (“deity”), and Job 5:1 reads: “Pray – call out! Is there any who answers you? And, to whom of the divine beings (Heb. kedoshim (qedoshim)) may you turn?” (cf. Isa. 10:17; 43:15, Ezek. 39:7; Hab. 1:12(?); 3:3; Ps. 16:3; Job 15:15, according to the keri, and possibly Deut. 33:3, a cryptic passage). It is this connotation which underlies the frequent epithet Kedosh Yisrael (Qedosh Yisrael), “the holy one (deity) of Israel” (frequently in Isaiah, in II Kings 19:22; Jer. 51:5; Ps. 71:22, et al.). All of this is in addition to the adjective kadosh (qadosh) that designates an attribute of God, of holy persons, places, objects, etc. Isaiah 6:3 contains the well-known liturgy proclaiming God’s holiness in the dramatic repetition: Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh (Qadosh, Qadosh, Qadosh). Mention should be made of the Syrian goddess Qudšu, who is known in Ugaritic literature, and whose cult was imported into Egypt during the New Kingdom, along with those of other Syrian and Canaanite deities. From literary references and graphic representations of Qudšu it appears that this goddess was at times known as “the queen of heaven, mistress of all the gods,” and that she was identified with the Egyptian goddess Hathor. It is difficult to ascertain exactly how the evidence concerning Qudšu relates to the Semitic root qd-š and its associated phenomena. It would be unwarranted to conclude that the priests and priestesses known as kadesh (qadesh) and kedeshah (qedeshah) were so called because they were devoted to the cult of Qudšu, although this might have been true in certain cases. It is more likely that such priestly functionaries were devoted to various goddesses of fertility, one of whom was probably Qudšu. Biblical traditions are consistent in their abhorrence of such cultic servitors, and it may be deduced from various allusions that the objection was at least partially based on their sexual practices, characteristic of idolatrous cults (cf. Deut. 23:19; Jer. 2:20; Micah 1:7, et al.; and probably the use of the verb zanah “to commit harlotry” as a way of characterizing idolatry, as in Hos. 9:1, et al.). It is not certain, however, whether the particular vocalizations of kadesh (qadesh) and kedeshah (qedeshah) represent a tendentious change from the model of kadosh (qadosh), so as to express abhorrence, or whether these vocalizations actually reflect earlier vocalizations in Semitic, such as qadištu in Akkadian, and the probable qadīšūma in Ugaritic (cf. contemporary qadîšîm/ĭn in Aramaic). [Baruch A. Levine]

In Rabbinic Literature In rabbinic theology, holiness is repeatedly defined as separateness. The Sifra (Lev. 19:2) paraphrases the verse (Lev. 19:2) “Ye shall be holy” by “You shall be separated.” While separation

53

kedushah

(Heb. perishut) is frequently equated with abstinence from illegitimate sexual relations as well as from lewdness generally and he who abstains from such practices is called holy (TJ, Yev. 2:4, 3; cf. Lev. R. 24:6; Ber. 10b), the concept of holiness is by no means restricted to the connotation of sexual purity despite the emphasis placed on the latter meaning. An examination of a variety of contexts in which “separateness” (equated with holiness) appears yields the following distinct meanings: (1) Strict abstention from all practices even remotely related to idolatry, e.g., attending circuses or cutting one’s hair in the heathen fashion (Sifra, Kedoshim, Perek 9:2, Aḥ arei, Perek 13:9; Sif. Deut. 85). Separation from the nations and their “abominations” (idolatrous practices) is tantamount to holiness. Accordingly, R. Nahum b. Simai is called a holy man because he never looked at the figure of the emperor engraved on a coin (TJ, Av. Zar. 3:1, 42c). (Presumably, his refusal to do so was based on emperor worship prevalent in his time.) (2) Separation from everything that is impure and thus defiling. This is suggested by the context of the verse (Lev. 11:44), one among several, on the basis of which the Sifra equates separateness with holiness. (3) Abstention from meat and wine (BB 60b; Tosef. Sot. 15:11. See also Ta’an. 11a where the biblical designation of the Nazirite as holy is attributed to the latter’s abstention from wine). (4) Moderation or complete abstention from marital intercourse (Sot. 3:4; Shah. 87a; Gen. R. 35:1). The connotation of sexual modesty and restraint is reflected in the reason given (Shab. 118b) for the appellation of R. Judah ha-Nasi as “Our Holy Master” (Heb. Rabbenu haKadosh). It is probably the latter meaning of holiness that R. Phinehas b. Jair had in mind when he described some of the rungs of the ladder of virtue as “separateness leads to purity, purity leads to holiness” (Mid. Tannaim to Deut. 23:15; Av. Zar. 20b; TJ, Shek. 3:4, 47c). However, in the case of other tannaim who earned the epithet holy (R. Meir-TJ, Ber. 2:75b; Gen. R. 100:7 and R. Ḥ iyya Gen. R. 33:3), the respective contexts indicate that the epithet bears no particular or especial reference to sexual matters. In this connection, it may be noted that in keeping with rabbinic thought, the human body too could be regarded as holy since sin defiles the body as well the soul. The rabbis state (Gen. R. 45:3) that Sarah declared to Hagar: “Happy art thou, that thou clingest to a holy body” (i.e., that of Abraham). Holiness is considered God’s very essence and the “Holy One, Blessed be He” (Heb. Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu) is the most frequent name of God found in rabbinic literature. God’s holiness is incommensurate with that of man and is permanently beyond human attainment (Gen. R. 90:2). “For God is holy in all manner of holiness” (Tanḥ . B. Kedoshim 3). Even though the divine holiness is absolute, Israel sanctifies God (Ex. R. 15:24) just as God sanctifies Israel (ibid.), “As much as to say, if you make yourselves holy, I impute it to you as though you hallowed Me; and if you do not make yourselves holy, I impute it to you as though you did not hallow Me. Can the meaning

be, if you make Me holy, I am holy, and if not, I am not made holy? Scripture, however, teaches: ‘For I am holy.’ I abide in My holiness whether you hallow Me or not.” (Sifra Kedoshim Parashah 1:1.) Unlike God’s holiness, that of Israel is not inherent. It is contingent upon its sanctification through the performance of the commandments. Their fulfillment lends holiness to Israel. The latter concept originated with the tannaim. Preeminent among the commandments whose observance sanctifies Israel are the Sabbath (Mekh. Shabbat 1) and the ritual fringes (Sif. Num. 115). This notion is expressed in the formula of the traditional benediction “… who has sanctified us by His commandments,” the benediction recited on the performance of a commandment. It has been suggested that in this way rabbinic thought sought to strip the material objects involved in the performance of various commandments of any inherent holiness magico-mythical thought ascribed to them. Clearly implied is the notion that the observance of a commandment endows the observer with sanctity and that the object is merely a means thereto (Heb. tashmish kedushah). Material objects such as a Scroll of the Torah, phylacteries, and mezuzah possess sanctity only if they have been prepared by someone who is legally bound to perform the commandment involved and for the purpose for which they were originally intended (Git. 45b). The Mishnah (Kel. 1:6–9) enumerates ten ascending degrees of holiness beginning with the Land of Israel and concluding with the Holy of Holies. The notion of ascending degrees of holiness is reflected in the halakhic principle that sacred objects or, more precisely, objects that serve a sacred purpose should only be sold or exchanged for objects that possess a higher sanctity (Meg. 9b). The epithet holy as applied to man is used sparingly in rabbinic literature. The angels, the Midrash declares, upon seeing Adam at the time of his creation wanted to sing and praise him as a holy being. But when God cast sleep upon him, they realized that he was a mere mortal and they refrained (Gen. R. 8:10). The Patriarchs, according to the Midrash (Yalkut Job 907), were not called holy until after their death. But here, as elsewhere in rabbinic thought, there is no dogmatic consistency. Thus, the Talmud declares (Yev. 20a) that he who fulfills the words of the sages is called holy. Man has it in his power to sanctify himself and, if he does so, even in small measure, he is greatly sanctified from above (Yoma 39a). Man is bidden to sanctify himself by voluntarily refraining from those things permitted to him by the Law (Yev. 20a). Nor is it abstemiousness alone that wins sanctity for man. When men fulfill the requirements of justice and thus exalt God, God causes His holiness to dwell among them (Deut. R; 5:6). The sanctity of man’s deeds invokes God’s aid (Lev. R. 24:4). An extraordinary act of charity is deemed a sanctification of the name of God (PdRK 146b). It is supremely hallowed when men are prepared to lay down their lives rather than abandon their religion or violate the law of God. Such an act is known as “sanctification of the Name” (Heb. *kiddush haShem). It may fairly be said to embody the highest ideal of rabbinic Judaism (Ber. 61b). Solomon Schechter wrote “Holiness is the highest achievement of the Law and its deepest experience

54

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kedushah

as well as the realization of righteousness. It is a composite of various aspects not easily definable, and, at times, seemingly contradictory” (Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology, 199). In Jewish Philosophy Medieval Jewish philosophers rarely use the term “holiness” as a technical term. When they do use this term, it appears, as a rule, in connection with quotations from Scripture or from the sages, and its explication derives from these sources. Thus, “holiness” describes the distinction between spirit and flesh, between the eternal and temporal, and between the absolute and changing. God is holy, for He has been “hallowed [distinguished] from any like Him” and He is “aloof and above all change.” The people of Israel is holy, because it separated itself from worldly pursuits and turned to the worship of God. The Sabbath is holy, since it is devoted to spiritual matters rather than worldly affairs (Abraham b. Ḥ iyya, Meditation of the Sad Soul, passim). There is, therefore, a close connection between the notions of “holiness” and “uniqueness” in the sphere of theology, and “holiness” and “separation” in the sphere of ethics, though the term “holiness,” in its primary meaning refers to the realm of ritual. Maimonides *Maimonides associates holiness with the idea of distinction and uniqueness, giving it an extreme intellectual interpretation. God is holy for He is absolutely different from creation. He is not similar to it in any of His attributes, and is independent from its being (Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah, 1:3). The angels are holy, for they are separate from any body (ibid., 4:12), and the heavenly spheres are holy, for their body can neither be destroyed nor changed (ibid., 3:9). Sanctification, therefore, means separation from the body. A place, name, or object are holy only insofar as they have been set aside from the outset to divine worship (ibid., 6 passim). Sanctification through the precepts of the Torah also implies uniqueness and separation. There are three ways, according to Maimonides, of sanctification through the precepts (Guide of the Perplexed, 3:47): (1) sanctification by virtue, i.e., the restraint of physical desires and their satisfaction only up to the limits of necessity, in order to devote oneself wholly to God; (2) the fulfillment of those precepts which remove man from concern with this world and its errors, and prepare him for the attainment of truth; (3) the holiness of worship, which means observance of the laws of pollution and purity, which are not of primary importance in the doctrine of Maimonides. A man who has attained the highest degree of sanctification, as did the Patriarchs or Moses, is freed from his dependence upon his flesh, and thus he imitates God, for he too acts without being involved in creation (ibid., 3:33). Judah Halevi *Judah Halevi also states that God is holy because He is of the spirit, aloof from the defects which inhere in matter, and governs creation without being dependent on it (Kuzari, 4:3). ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Nevertheless, Halevi is far from the intellectual and distinctive conception of Maimonides. Holiness, according to Judah Halevi, is a power that engulfs the soul which unfolds toward it. This is a living spiritual power flowing from God and present in everybody who worships Him (ibid.; see also 1:103). The people of Israel is called holy, for such a power, manifested mainly in prophecy, inspires the people, the Hebrew language, in the Land of Israel, and the Temple. There is some notion of separation in Judah Halevi’s conception of holiness. The prophet and the worshiper must purify themselves from sin, from negative emotions, from sorrow and weariness, exactly as they have to be pure from vice and wicked acts; but this does not mean separation from the world. Nor is the purpose of purification the attainment of truth; it is rather a preparation for the proper performance of the commandments and rituals prescribed by the Torah. The consecrating person has to separate himself from the polluted, but not from the living flesh; he has to overcome dullness, tiredness, frustration and stupidity, but not to remove himself from the life of the senses and emotions. Nachman Krochmal The discussion of the term “holiness” in modern Jewish philosophy is associated with medieval ideas, but has undergone changes under the influence of various secular systems. Nachman *Krochmal, influenced by *Hegel, defines the holy as a static and lasting spiritual attribute, whose opposite is profane, which is dynamic and variable (Moreh Nevukhei ha-Zeman (1824), ch. 6). The holy is a symbol of the spiritual, i.e., it arouses spiritual thoughts. The precepts sanctify, for their fulfillment reflects perception and enforces it. Objects are pure insofar as the idea embodied in them can be perceived clearly, i.e., they are capable of receiving holiness, while the polluted is the body which is impenetrable to reason, i.e., a barrier to holiness (ibid.). This appears to be an integration of elements from both Maimonides and Judah Halevi, but actually, contrary to them, Krochmal conceived the spiritual as innate in nature and history, identifying it with reason. Sanctification, therefore, is not withdrawal from the world, but the self-realization of reason within existence itself. Moritz Lazarus Under the influence of neo-Kantianism, a change took place. Moritz *Lazarus identified the holy with conduct, according to the pure moral postulates of reason, which is free from causal necessity existing in nature. According to this system, God is identified with the idea of moral conduct. He has no reality beyond this ideal and only in this respect is He holy. Divine worship is, therefore, identical with ethics (the ritual is only a symbol of pure ethics). Thus, one is holy through moral conduct, and society is sanctified by subordinating it to the categorical imperative (Ethik des Judentums, 1 (1904), 311ff.), although, according to Lazarus, this can never be achieved. Hermann Cohen Hermann *Cohen, similarly, defines the holy as the sphere of

55

kedushah

ethical activity, the meeting place between human and divine reason. God is holy because the ideal of ethics is inherent in Him; but only man can accomplish this ideal, with God’s help, thus consecrating himself and society by his conduct (Religion der Vernunft (1929), 116–29). Thus, according to him, holiness is the sphere where the human and the divine meet to perfect each other. Franz Rosenzweig A diametrically opposite view is to be found in the existentialist doctrine of Franz *Rozenzweig. He returns to the emphasis of the “otherness” or separation contained in holiness. God is placed opposite the world. He is holy, for He is eternal and, therefore, exists beyond the world. The world attains holiness only through revelation, which is the grace of God granted to man. Facing God, man is freed from the temporal and transient, and becomes associated with the eternal. This is the function of the biblical commandments, which consecrate the life of the Jew within the framework of his community (Der Stern der Erloesung, 3 (1954), passim). It should be pointed out that new trends have emerged, which derive directly from the *Kabbalah philosophy of the Middle Ages. Outstanding among them is the doctrine of R. Abraham I. *Kook, who interpreted holiness, in the spirit of the Kabbalah, as the all-embracing existence of the divine in its absolute unity. [Eliezer Schweid] Bibliography: G. van der Leuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation (1938); A.L. Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (1964), 171–205; C.H. Gordon, Ugaritic Textbook (1965), glossary, no. 2210, S.V. qdš; C.F. Jean and J. Hoftijzer, Dictionnaire des Inscriptions Sémitiques de l’Ouest (1965), 253–4, S.V. qdš I, II, II, esp. III, 1; Pritchard, Texts, 428; J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, 1 (1970); B.A. Levine, in: JAOS, 85 (1965), 307–18; idem, in: Religions in Antiquity, ed. by J. Neusner (1967), 71–87; idem, in: Eretz Israel, 9 (1969), 88–96; idem, in: Leshonenu, 30 (1965–66), 3–4; M. Haran, in: HUCA, 36 (1965), 191–226; J. Pedersen, Israel, its Life and Culture, 1–2 (1926), 187–212, 244–59; 3–4 (1940), 150–534; Kaufmann Y., Toledot, vols. 1 and 2, index, S.V. Kedushah, esp. vol. 1, 537–59; J. Liver, in: EM, 5 (1968), 507–8, 526–31; R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy (19433), 30–41, 52–84; M.D. Cassuto, in: EM, 2 (1954), 354–8; J. Reenger, in: Zeitschrift fuer Assyriologie, 58 (1967), 110–88; R. Stadelmann, Syrisch-Palaestinensische Gottheiten in Aegypten (1962), 110–23; de Vaux, Anc Isr 221–9, 345–57, 406–13. IN RABBINIC LITERATURE: S. Schechter, Some Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (1909), index S.V. holiness; G.F. Moore, Judaism (1927), index, S.V. holiness; A. Buechler, Types of Jewish-Palestinian Piety (1922); M. Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind (1952), 167–88; E.E. Urbach, Ḥ azal, Pirkei Emunot ve-De’ot (1969), index S.V. Kadosh, Kedushah; Montefiore and Loewe, Rabbinic Anthology (19602), index S.V. holiness.

(‫ ָקדוֹ ש‬, “holy”) is the main theme of this doxology, hence the name Kedushah. During public worship, the Kedushah is inserted at the start of the third benediction when the reader repeats the Amidah. It is recited only when a quorum of ten men (*minyan) is present, since it is written: “I will be hallowed among the children of Israel” (Lev. 22:32), which is interpreted to infer that at least ten children of Israel must be present (Bet. 21). The nucleus of the different forms of the Kedushah consists of the following three biblical passages: “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory” (Isa. 6:3); “Blessed be the glory of the Lord from His place” (Ezek. 3:12); “The Lord will reign for ever, Thy God, O Zion, unto all generations, Halleluyah” (Ps. 146:10). To these sentences various additions were made during the first millennium C.E. Some of the changes were adopted in all liturgies, while others remained solely part of one or two local rites. The actual text of the basic Kedushah is not cited in the Talmud, although the prayer is mentioned (Ber. 21; Sot. 49a). It may be that the essential Kedushah text was already standardized during the tannaitic period, if not earlier. *Natronai Gaon (second half of the ninth century) opposed any change in the Kedushah text because “We do not change our usage from that which the scholars of the Talmud taught” (Seder Rabbi Amram, ed. by D. Hedegård, 1 (1951), no. 57; J. Heinemann, Ha-Tefillah bi-Tekufat ha-Tanna’im ve-haAmora’im (19662), 23, 141). The following is the most common form of the short Kedushah, incorporating the three basic texts, and recited daily during the morning and afternoon services and during the afternoon service on Sabbath and festivals: Reader – We will sanctify Thy Name in the world even as they sanctify it in the highest heavens, as it is written by the hand of thy prophet: And they called one unto the other and said, Cong. – Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord of Hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory. Reader – Those over against them say, Blessed – Cong. – Blessed be the glory of the Lord from his place. Reader – And in Thy Holy Words it is written, saying Cong. – The Lord shall reign for ever, thy God, O Zion, unto all generations, Praise ye the Lord (Hertz, Prayer, 135–7).

KEDUSHAH (Heb. ‫ ; ְק ֻד ּׁ ָשה‬lit. “holiness”), the third blessing of the *Amidah. The blessing’s full appellation is Kedushat haShem (Sanctification of the Name) to distinguish it from Kedushat ha-Yom (Sanctification of the Day), the central blessing of the Sabbath and festival Amidah (RH 32a). Popularly, however, the term Kedushah refers to the additions and responses recited by the cantor and congregation in the third benediction during the repetition of the Amidah. The word kadosh

There are three different introductions to the Kedushah which are preserved in the various rituals and recited on different occasions: (1) Na’ariẓ kha ve-Nakdishkha – “We will reverence and sanctify thee according to the mystic utterance of the holy Seraphim, who sanctify thy Name in holiness, as it is written by the hand of thy prophet…” (Sof. 16:72). This introduction is retained in the Sephardi, the later Italian, the Persian, and the Yemenite rituals. It is based on Isaiah 29:23 and is utilized by these rituals for weekday, Sabbath, and festival *Shaḥ arit and *Minḥ ah Kedushot. The Ashkenazi and Egyptian rituals use this introduction for the Kedushah. (2) Keter yittenu lekha –

56

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kefar baram

“Unto Thee, O Lord our God, shall the heavenly angels above, with Thy people Israel assembled beneath, ascribe a crown; all shall repeat thrice with one accord the holy praise unto Thee, according to the word spoken by Thy prophets…” (see Ḥ ul 91b). The Sephardi, Italian (originally also for Shaḥ arit), Romanian, Yemenite, and most ḥ asidic rituals (following Nusaḥ Ari) have this introduction for the Musaf Kedushah. (3) Nekaddesh – “We will sanctify Thy Name in the world…,” introduces the Kedushot in Ashkenazi rite in both the Shaḥ arit and Minḥ ah services on weekdays, Sabbaths, and festivals. Additional changes in the body of the various daily, Sabbath, and festival Kedushot have been inserted. The most important of these insertions is the Shema –”Hear, O Israel” (Deut. 6:4) in the Musaf Kedushah – which dates from the sixth century C.E., when the Jewish communities of the Byzantine Empire attempted to circumvent a prohibition against its recitation in the synagogue. The Jews thought that its presence in the Kedushah of the Musaf service would not be suspected by the authorities (Baer, Seder, 237). *Saadiah and *Maimonides later abrogated the recitation of the Shema during the Musaf service, and as a result the Yemenite and Persian rituals do not retain the insertion. All other rituals continue the tradition of reciting the Shema. The Kedushah recited during the repetition of the Amidah is called Kedushah de-Amidah (Kedushah recited while standing), since it may be recited only when standing. An abridged form of the Kedushah, called Kedushah de-yeshivah (Kedushah recited while seated), is recited after *Barekhu during the Shaḥ arit service. It is permissible to recite this Kedushah when seated since it is essentially descriptive of the angels’ acknowledgment of God’s sovereignty as related in Isaiah 6:3 and Ezekiel 3:12. A third Kedushah, Kedushah de-Sidra (Kedushah recited at the conclusion of study), is also recited daily toward the end of the morning service for those who missed the previously recited Kedushah during the repetition of the Amidah. The collection of verses composing this Kedushah begin with “And a redeemer shall come to Zion” (Hertz, Prayer, 202), and also includes the passages from Isaiah 6:3 and Ezekiel 3:12, and their Aramaic translations. The Kedushah de-Sidra probably derives its name from the Babylonian custom of having rabbinical discourses after the morning service. Along with a prayer for the observance of the Torah, this Kedushah would be recited upon the conclusion of the lecture. The Kedushah de-Sidra is also recited before the reading of the Torah during the Minḥ ah services on Sabbath and festivals, and after reading Psalm 91 at the conclusion of the Sabbath. “The world is maintained by the Kedushah” (Sot. 49a) refers to the Kedushah de-Sidra.

is considered a vehicle for the ḥ azzan or synagogal composer to give it a suitably brilliant yet solemn rendition. The early cantorial manuals contain many examples of especially ornate settings of Na’ariẓ kha (such as the “more than forty” settings in the so-called “Hanoverian Compendium” of 1744 described by Nadel). Solomon de *Rossi’s Kedushah for four voices, in his Ha-Shirim asher li-Shelomo (Venice 1622/23, no. 7), follows the Sephardi version (Keter). However, S. *Naumbourg, in his 1877 edition of the Shirim, substituted for this the Ashkenazi version (Na’ariẓ kha). Because of the mystical connotations of the Kedushah, controversies arose in the 17t century about the repetitions of the Divine name and the word keter in artistic compositions, since these were thought to contain the dangerous implication of “two authorities” (shetei rashuyyot), i.e., a negation of the unity of God.

Musical Rendition The Kedushah has no standard melodic pattern of its own. In the East European Ashkenazi tradition there is a tendency to render the first Kedushah in a minor and the second in a major key, and on the High Holidays it follows the intonation of the *Shema Israel and Ve-ha-kohanim. In general, the Kedushah

KEFAR BARAM (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ַ ּב ְר ָעם‬, locality in Upper Galilee, 7 mi. (11 km.) N.W. of Safed. Its Jewish settlement is mentioned only in the Middle Ages (by R. Samuel b. Samson, 1210, and R. Jacob, mid-13t century). Later travelers (including R. Moses Basola, 1522) mention two synagogues there. In 1762 Kefar Baram was destroyed; Maronites resettled the village in the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

57

Bibliography: E. Levy, Yesodot ha-Tefillah (19522), 164–7; Elbogen, Gottesdienst, 61–67; J. Heinemann, Ha-Tefillah bi-Tekufat ha-Tanna’im ve-ha-Amora’im (19662), index; Werner, in: HUCA, 19 (1945–46), 292–307; Idelsohn, Liturgy, 94–98; Abrahams, Companion, lx–lxi, cxlv–cxlvi, clxv–clxvi. [Bathja Bayer]

KEFAR AKKO (Heb. ֹ‫) ְּכ ַפר ַעכּ ו‬, village mentioned in the Tosefta as the seat of R. Judah b. Agra (Kil. 1:12) and in the Babylonian Talmud as a place from which 1,500 people made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Ta’an. 21a). Some scholars have identified it with the Caphareccho appearing in one version of Josephus’ writings (Wars, 2:573). If, however, the location of Kefar Akko at Tell al-Fukhkār outside Acre is accepted, it cannot correspond to the locality mentioned by Josephus since the latter is included in the list of his fortifications and Josephus would hardly have fortified a suburb of Acre, the headquarters of his enemy Vespasian. Bibliography: Saarisalo, in: JPOS, 9 (1929), 27ff.; Avi-Yonah, in: IEJ, 3 (1953), 96–97. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KEFAR AZAR (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ֲאזַ ״ר‬, moshav in central Israel, about 6 mi. (10 km.) E. of Tel Aviv, affiliated to Tenu’at haMoshavim, and founded in 1932 by veteran agricultural laborers of the Second and Third Aliyah. Engaged in suburban truck farming from the outset, Kefar Azar principally raised vegetables, dairy cattle, and poultry. In the largely urbanized surrounding area, the moshav preserved to an extent its character of a rural “island.” Kefar Azar is named after the writer Alexander Siskind *Rabinovitz (abbr. “Azar”). In 1968 its population was 330, rising to 460 in the mid-1990s and 539 inhabitants in 2002 after expansion. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

kefar barukh

19t century. The remains of a synagogue from the third century C.E. were found, built on the highest point of the village. It measures 59 ft. (18 m.) by 43 ft. (13 m.). In front of the main building stands a porch with a row of six columns, of which one has survived in situ. The building, entered through three ornate doorways, contains two rows of columns joined by one transverse row. Traces of stairs leading to an upper (women’s) gallery have been found in the northwestern corner. The lintels of the doors and the window pediments are elaborately decorated with floral ornaments; two angels holding a wreath above the main entrance have been hammered away. An inscription below a window mentions the builder as Eleazar b. Judan. The synagogue has been partly restored by the Israel Department of Antiquities. Kibbutz Baram, affiliated to HaKibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad, was founded near the ruins of Kefar Baram in 1949 by former members of the *Palmaḥ . The main farming branches included fruit orchards, poultry, dairy cattle, and field crops. The kibbutz owns a plastics factory producing medical equipment. Its tourist attractions include a spa and alternative medicine center. A small museum with a Judaica collection is located in the kibbutz. In 2002 the population of Kibbutz Baram was 488. Bibliography: H. Kohl and C. Watzinger, Antike Synagogen in Galilaea (1916), 89ff. Website: www.galil-elion.org.il. [Michael Avi-Yonah / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR BARUKH (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ָ ּברו ְּך‬, moshav near the Kishon reservoir of the National Water Carrier in the Jezreel Valley, Israel, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim. It was founded in 1926 by settlers from Kurdistan, Iraq, Romania, Poland, Germany, and also “Mountain Jews” from the Caucasus. In its initial years, Kefar Barukh suffered from a lack of water and difficulty of access (although it was a station on the then-existing Jezreel Valley narrow-gauge railway). Its field crops, dairy cattle, and fruit orchards constituted prominent farming branches. Later on, other farming branches such as flowers, poultry, fishery, and goose fattening were added. The moshav is named after Baruch Kahana of Ploesti, Romania, who dedicated his wealth to the *Jewish National Fund. In 1968 its population was 202; in 2002, 261.

it was founded in 1932 in the framework of the “Thousand Families Settlement Scheme.” The village was partly based on intensive farming, but due to the limited farm area at the village’s disposal, many settlers held jobs in Reḥ ovot or in the Tel Aviv area. The village is named after the *Bilu movement. In 1968 its population was 370, rising to 450 in the mid-1990s and 978 in 2002 after residential expansion. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR BLUM (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ְ ּבלוּם‬, kibbutz in the Ḥ uleh Valley, Israel, affiliated to Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-ha-Kibbutzim. It was founded in 1943 on the edge of the malarial swamps existing at the time, by the so-called “Anglo-Baltic” kibbutz, composed of pioneers from the Baltic countries and the first group of the *Iḥ ud Habonim movement of England. The settlers endeavored to make their kibbutz a focal point for pioneers from English-speaking countries. The kibbutz engaged in intensive farming, including field crops, orchards, poultry, and dairy cattle, and has developed several industrial enterprises, with factories manufacturing automatic irrigation equipment and electric grids. The kibbutz has a large guesthouse, kayaking, and a cultural center. In 2002 its population was 527. The American Nationaler Arbeter Farband (Farband Labor Zionist Order) contributed toward the establishment of Kefar Blum and named it in honor of the French Jewish statesman and socialist leader Leon *Blum. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR BILU (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ִ ּביל״ ּו‬, moshav in the Coastal Plain of Israel, near Reḥ ovot. Affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim,

KEFAR DAROM (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר דָּ רוֹ ם‬, locality in the southern coastal plain of Philistia. It is first mentioned in the Talmud as the seat of R. Eleazar b. Isaac (Sot. 20b). It was captured by the Arabs in 634 and in Crusader times it was a fortress called Dārūm. Taken by Saladin in 1188, it was destroyed in 1192 by Richard the Lionhearted and later rebuilt by the Ayyubids. Arab writers describe it as one hour distant from Gaza (whose southern gate was known as Bāb al-Dārūm) on the border of the desert in an area famous for its vines. It is generally identified with the village of Dayr al-Balaḥ , 10 mi. (16 km.) south of Gaza. The village contains an ancient mound and the ruins of an old mosque. Kefar Darom was also the name of a modern kibbutz founded in 1946 which fell to the Egyptians in the Israel War of Independence (1948–49). Settlers from Kefar Darom then moved to a new site which they called Benei *Darom. In 1970 a *Naḥ al group moved back to the original site of kibbutz Kefar Darom, making it the first settlement in the *Gush Katif area. In 1973 it became a civilian settlement and served as a training farm for *Gush Emunim settlers. A few years later, it was abandoned, until 1989, when new inhabitants settled there. From the 1990s, Kefar Darom came under terror attacks. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 150 and at the end of 2002 the population of Kefar Darom increased to 324 residents. In August 2005 Kefar Darom was evacuated along with the other settlements of Gush Katif as part of the government’s disengagement plan. Resistance was particularly strong, with settlers barricading themselves

58

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR BIALIK (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ְ ּביַ אלִ יק‬, moshav in Haifa Bay, Israel, affiliated to Ha-Iḥ ud ha-Ḥ akla’i, and founded in 1934 by immigrants from Germany who were later joined by settlers of different origin. Kefar Bialik, separate from the nearby Kiryat Bialik suburb, preserved its agricultural character and moshav form. Nevertheless, in the late 1960s housing estates were built within its confines. Kefar Bialik, named after the poet Ḥ .N. *Bialik, had 610 inhabitants in 1968. The population maintained its size through the-mid-1990s and rose to 768 in 2002. [Efraim Orni]

kefar giladi

inside the synagogue and on its roof before being forcibly removed by the police and army. Bibliography: Abel, in: RB, 49 (1940), 67ff. [Michael Avi-Yonah /Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR EẒ YON (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ֶע ְציוֹ ן‬, kibbutz in the Hebron Hills about 14 mi. (23 km.) S. of Jerusalem, affiliated to *Ha Kibbutz ha-Dati. A first attempt at settlement there was made by religious Jews from Iraq who established Migdal Eder (1926/27; the place is not identical with the biblical site of that name). The site was abandoned in the 1929 Arab riots. In 1935, a Jewish citrus grove owner, S.Z. Holzmann, acquired the land, prepared it for setting up a mountain village and country resort, and named it Kefar Eẓ yon, a translation of his own name. His work was brought to a standstill by the 1936–39 Arab rebellion. In 1943, Kevuẓ at Avraham of Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati, whose members hailed from Poland, founded Kefar Eẓ yon, the first of the four villages constituting the Eẓ yon Bloc (the others were *Massu’ot Yiẓ ḥ ak, *Ein Ẓ urim, and *Revadim). The kibbutz members worked in afforestation and developed farm branches. From the end of 1947 the kibbutz repelled frequent Arab attacks. It also improved its strategic position and harassed Arab communications sent to reinforce Arab forces on the Jerusalem front. A unit of 35 men (remembered in Hebrew as “Ha-Lamed-He”) of *Palmaḥ and *Haganah members from Jerusalem making its way on foot from Hartuv to reinforce the Eẓ yon Bloc was intercepted by Arabs and all its members killed (Jan. 16, 1948). A relief convoy suffered severe losses on March 27. On May 12, the Arab Legion and vast numbers of Arab irregulars mounted the final assault on the Bloc, which two days later succumbed against overwhelming odds. Most of the defenders of Kefar Eẓ yon, men and women, were massacred by an Arab mob after having capitulated to the Arab Legion. The Arabs totally obliterated all traces of the Jewish villages and an Arab Legion camp was set up on the site. The Bloc area, together with the Hebron Hills, was taken by the Israel Army in the *Six-Day War on June 7, 1967. In September 1967, kibbutz Kefar Eẓ yon was renewed by a group of Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati which included children of the original settlers massacred in 1948. The new kibbutz set up industrial branches along with farming. Its farming was based on poultry, turkeys, and orchards. Industry included the Mofet ballistic armor plant. Kefar Eẓ yon operates a guest house and has a nature preserve. In 2002 its population was 408. Website: www.kfar-etzion.co.il.

[Efraim Orni]

KEFAR GAMALA (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ַ ּג ְמלָ א‬, ancient village in the territory of Jerusalem. It is mentioned in Byzantine sources as the place where the tomb of R. *Gamaliel, the grandson of Hillel the Elder, the teacher of the apostle *Paul, was discovered following a dream by Lucian the local priest (PL 41:807, 809). Interred together with the Jewish sage were the remains of his two sons and of St. Stephen the deacon, the first Christian martyr. The distance of Kefar Gamala from Jerusalem is ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

given as 20 miles. After the discovery of the tomb, the body of the saint was exposed in Jerusalem and then transferred to Constantinople in 415. Kefar Gamala is generally placed at Jammāla, a ruin 7 mi. (11 km.) west of Ramallah and this identification is supported by the fact that Kefar Gamala is mentioned in the sources together with Arimathea (Rantis) and Selemia (Khirbat Salamiyya) in the vicinity. From 1851 it was proposed to identify it with Beit Jimāl, 16 mi. (26 km.) southwest of Jerusalem, but this village was outside the territory of Jerusalem in Byzantine times. Bibliography: Abel, in: RB, 33 (1924), 235ff. 306; Beyer, in: ZDPV, 51 (1931), 225–6; A. Sacchetti, Studi Stephaniani (1934). [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KEFAR GIDEON (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ִ ּג ְדעוֹ ן‬, moshav in the Jezreel Valley, Israel, 1.2 mi. (3 km.) N. of Afulah, affiliated to *Agudat Israel, and founded in 1923 by religious Jews from Romania. An insufficient water supply at first deterred the moshav’s progress, but in the 1940s ample groundwater reserves were discovered. After 1948, new immigrants were absorbed into the moshav, which engaged mainly in field crops and dairy cattle. The moshav is named after the biblical figure of Gideon. In 1968 its population was 140; in 2002, 198. [Efraim Orni]

KEFAR GILADI (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ִ ּגלְ ָע ִדי‬, kibbutz in N. Israel, on the N.W. rim of the Ḥ uleh Valley, affiliated to Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-ha-Kibbutzim. Founded in 1916 on *Jewish Colonization Association (ICA) land, Kefar Giladi was established by *Ha-Shomer (Guardsmen Association) to guard outlying Jewish land in the area during World War I and to increase the food supply to the starving yishuv. By 1919 two more small outposts, one of them *Tel Ḥ ai, were established in the vicinity. When the area was marked for inclusion in the French Mandate territory of Syria, Arabs revolting against the French in 1920 attacked these Jewish settlements. Kefar Giladi had to be temporarily abandoned, but the settlers returned 10 months later. In 1926 the settlements of Kefar Giladi and Tel Ḥ ai merged. During World War II (1941), Kefar Giladi, together with *Metullah, guarded the country’s northern border against an invasion of Vichy French troops. In 1946 Kefar Giladi suffered casualties when British forces besieged and searched the kibbutz, known for its assistance in organizing “illegal” Jewish immigration across the nearby border. In 1952 Kefar Giladi decided to join Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-haKibbutzim after the split in Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad movement. In 1968 the kibbutz had 680 inhabitants, in the mid1990s the population was approximately 710, but by 2002 it had dropped to 559. Its economy is based mainly on irrigated field crops, deciduous fruit orchards, dairy cattle, and fishery. Kefar Giladi also runs a quarry, plant nursery, and rest home. The kibbutz is named after Israel *Giladi, one of the founders of Ha-Shomer. [Efraim Orni]

59

kefar glickson

KEFAR GLICKSON (Heb. ‫יקסוֹ ן‬ ְ ִ‫) ְּכ ַפר ְ ּגל‬, kibbutz in the N. Sharon, Israel, on the rim of the Manasseh Hills, affiliated to Ha-Oved ha-Ẓ iyyoni. It was founded in 1939 on *Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA) land. The founding settlers, from Romania, erected a permanent village only in 1945. In 1969 Kefar Glickson’s economy was based on intensive farming and on a factory processing lime. Later on it set up guest rooms and a youth hostel. The kibbutz was linked to a neighboring youth village, *Allonei Yiẓ ḥ ak, and is named after the journalist and General Zionist leader Moshe *Gluecksohn (Glickson). Its population in 1968 was 250; in 2002, 284. Website: www.glikson.co.il.

[Efraim Orni]

Kibbutzim. It was founded in 1936 by pioneers from Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Germany, who were members of the *Maccabi Sports Organization and the Maccabi ha-Ẓ a’ir youth movement. Some of them had come to participate in the *Maccabiah which took place in the country that year, and stayed on “illegally” (see *Immigration, “Illegal”). The kibbutz developed intensive, irrigated farming based on field crops, avocado orchards, dairy cattle, poultry, and fishery; it also went into partnership in a food factory with the neighboring kibbutz, *Ramat Yoḥ anan. In 1969 it had 310 inhabitants; in 2002, 291. Kefar ha-Maccabi is named after the Maccabi Organization which contributed funds toward the purchase of its land. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR Ḥ ABAD (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ַח ָ ּב״ד‬, village in central Israel near the Lydda–Tel Aviv railway, established by Ḥ abad Ḥ asidim in 1949. Founded on the initiative of the Lubavitch rabbi Joseph Isaac Shneersohn, Kefar Ḥ abad was initially intended for Ḥ abad immigrants from Russia. The original settlers were later augmented by families from North Africa. At the end of 1969, it had 1,540 inhabitants, in the mid-1990s the population was approximately 3,460, and in 2002 it was 4,220. It became a center for Ḥ abad Ḥ asidim in Israel and the location of many religious and educational institutions. In addition to its yeshivot and a teachers’ seminary for girls, Kefar Ḥ abad also sponsored institutions for vocational education including a printing school dedicated in memory of the five children and their teacher murdered in the village in 1955 by fedayeen raiders while at evening prayers. Kefar Ḥ abad is the focal point for Ḥ abad celebrations, such as Yod-Tet Kislev, the anniversary of the release of the founder of Ḥ abad, Rabbi *Shneur Zalman of Lyady, from a Czarist prison in 1798. A community center known as the “House of the President,” in honor of President Zalman *Shazar, serves as a meeting place for the youth of Kefar Ḥ abad and its neighboring settlements. In 1970, an absorption center for new immigrants was opened there. Many of the settlers engage in farming of field crops, poultry, and dairy cattle.

KEFAR Ḥ ANANYAH (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ֲחנַ נְ יָ ה‬, ancient Jewish village, situated, according to the Mishnah, on the border between Upper and Lower Galilee (Shev. 9:2). It was known as a village of potters, who utilized the black (Tosef., BM 6:3) or white soil (BM 74a) found there. Vessels of special forms produced in the potters’ workshops of Kefar Ḥ ananyah are mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud (Pe’ah 7:4, 20a) and the Midrash (Lam. Zuta 1:5). Hawkers living there visited four or five villages in the vicinity, returning home to sleep (TJ, Ma’as. 2:3, 49d). At least one rabbi, Abba Ḥ alafta, lived there (BM 94a). Cattle and goats were raised in the vicinity. Kefar Ḥ ananyah is usually identified with Kafr ʿAnān, 6 mi. (c. 9½ km.) southwest of Safed. In 1522, according to R. Moses Basola, there were 50 priestly Jewish families and a synagogue in Kafr ʿAnān. This community is also mentioned in the middle of the 16t century by R. Samuel b. Judah and it seems to have endured until the end of the 17t century. Remains of an ancient synagogue and tomb caves of talmudic times have been found on the site. Bibliography: Braslavski, in: BJPES, 1 (1933), 18ff. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KEFAR HAMACCABI (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ַה ּ ַמ ַּכ ִ ּבי‬, kibbutz in the Haifa Bay area, Israel, affiliated to Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-ha-

KEFAR HANASI (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ַה ָ ּנשִׂ יא‬, kibbutz in Upper Galilee, Israel, S. of the Ḥ uleh Valley, affiliated to Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-ha-Kibbutzim. It was founded on July 2, 1948, during the Israeli War of Independence, just when the Syrians established their bridgehead at nearby *Mishmar ha-Yarden in an attempt to cut off the whole of Upper Galilee. When fighting was renewed a week later to contain and reduce the bridgehead, the kibbutz found itself in the middle of battle. The settlers were graduates of the *Iḥ ud Habonim youth movement of England, Australia, and other English-speaking countries. Its economy was based on intensive farming (orchards, citrus groves, field crops, a plant nursery, and poultry), a factory producing industrial valves, a small hydroelectric plant, and guest rooms. The communal system was gradually phased out, with members receiving salaries or working outside the kibbutz and covering their own expenses. In 2002 the population of Kefar ha-Nasi was 489. Its name (President’s Village) commemorates Chaim *Weizmann.

60

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: Challenge: An Encounter with LubavitchChabad (1970), 136–50. [Aaron Rothkoff]

KEFAR HAḤ ORESH (Heb. ‫“ ; ְּכ ַפר ַהחוֹ ֵר ׁש‬Woodland Village”), kibbutz in Lower Galilee, Israel, W. of Nazareth, affiliated to Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-ha-Kibbutzim. It was founded in 1933 by a group from the *Gordonia youth movement in Poland. In the initial years, the settlers were employed in planting forests in the neighborhood, notably the King George V Forest. Citrus groves, poultry, and field crops constituted prominent farming branches. The kibbutz also operated a margarine factory. In 1969 Kefar ha-Ḥ oresh had 244 inhabitants. In 2002 its population was 421. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

kefar jawitz

Website: www.villageinn.co.il. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR HARO’EH (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ָהר ֶֹא״ה‬, moshav in the Ḥ efer Plain, Israel, affiliated to Ha-Po’el ha-Mizrachi Moshavim Association, founded in 1934 by pioneers from Eastern Europe. It became a spiritual center for the religious moshavim in the country. In 1968, Kefar ha-Ro’eh had 860 inhabitants including the students in its yeshivah, which was the study institute of the *Bnei Akiva youth movement. Its population rose to approximately 1,050 in the mid-1990s and 1,430 in 2002. Its economy was based on intensive farming, such as poultry, dairy cattle, citrus (mainly citrons), and flowers. The moshav’s name is composed of the initials of Rabbi Avraham ha-Kohen *Kook. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR Ḥ ASIDIM (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ֲח ִס ִידים‬, moshav and suburban area in the Zebulun Valley, 7½ mi. (12 km.) S.E. of Haifa, Israel. The moshav, affiliated to Ha-Po’el ha-Mizrachi Moshavim Association, was founded in 1924 by two groups of Ḥ asidim from Poland who, together with their leaders, the rabbis of Kozienice and Yablonov, initially settled on two sites further east, on the Jezreel Valley border. In 1927 they together established a permanent village at Kefar Ḥ asidim and with great dedication drained the malarial swamps and developed farming there. In 1937 an agricultural school, Kefar ha-No’ar haDati, was established near the moshav. In 1950 a second religious village, Kefar Ḥ asidim Bet, was set up (unaffiliated to a country-wide organization). Simultaneously, two large ma’barot (transitory immigrant camps) were established nearby, whose inhabitants were later gradually transferred to the suburban religious community of Rekhasim whose construction began in 1951. In 1968 Rekhasim had 2,540 inhabitants, while Kefar Ḥ asidim and Kefar Ḥ asidim Bet together had 675, and Kefar ha-No’ar ha-Dati, 590. In the mid-1990s Kefar Ḥ asidim and Kefar Ḥ asidim Bet together had approximately 650 residents, and Kefar ha-No’ar ha-Dati dropped to approximately 484. At the end of 2002 the population of Kefar Ḥ asidim was 508 residents and the population of Kefar Ḥ asidim Bet was 188, while Rekhasim’s population was 7,750. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR Ḥ ATTIN, Hittaya (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ִח ַּטיָ יא‬, village in Galilee, the seat of R. Jacob (Ḥ ag. 5b) and R. Azariah (P d RK 54). It had a synagogue (Gen. R. 65:16) and served as a refuge for R. Simeon b. Lakish, who escaped from the wrath of the patriarch Judah II (TJ, Sanh. 2:1, 19d). According to the Jerusalem Talmud (Meg. 1:1, 70a), it was identified with the Ziddim-Zer of Joshua 19:35. The name of the village (“Grain Village”) indicates its fertile surroundings. It is identified with the Arab village of Ḥ iṭṭīn or Ḥ aṭṭīn al-Qadīm (“ancient Ḥ attin”), which gave its name to the Horns of Hittin, where the Crusaders were defeated by Saladin in 1187. In this village, the Druze venerate the tomb of al-Nabī Shuʿayb, who is identified with Jethro, ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Moses’ father-in-law, and hold an annual festival. Building remains and ancient tombs have been found there. Bibliography: S. Klein (ed.), Sefer ha-Yishuv (1939), s.v.; G. Dalman, Sacred Sites and Ways (1935), index, S.V. Ḥ aṭ ṭ in. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KEFAR Ḥ AYYIM (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ַח ִ ּיים‬, moshav in the Ḥ efer Plain, central Israel, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim. Kefar Ḥ ayyim was one of the first settlements established in the region (1933), founded by two groups of veteran pioneers – Third Aliyah immigrants from Russia, of which one had attempted settlement in the Negev as early as the 1920s and had defended *Ḥ uldah in the 1929 riots. Citrus groves and dairy cattle were prominent farming branches. The kibbutz name commemorates Chaim *Arlosoroff. In 1968 its population was 360, increasing to 468 in 2002. [Efraim Orni]

KEFAR HESS (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ֶהס‬, moshav in the southern Sharon, Israel, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim, founded in 1933 by settlers from Eastern Europe. After 1948, the moshav was enlarged by newcomers from Hungary. Its economy was based on intensive farming: citrus groves, field crops, poultry, flowers, and beehives. In 1967 its population was 410, rising to around 650 in the mid-1990s and 971 in 2002 after additional expansion. Kefar Hess is named after Moses *Hess. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR Ḥ ITTIM (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ִח ִּטים‬, moshav shittufi northwest of Tiberias. After earlier attempts at settlement failed, the settlement was renewed in 1924 by a Ha-Po’el ha-Mizrachi moshav group, which was replaced in 1932 by a group of Sephardi Jews who left two years later. In 1936 the immigrant group “Ha-Koẓ er” from Bulgaria permanently established the first moshav shittufi in the country there. Farming was based on field and garden crops, deciduous and other fruit trees, dairy cattle, and poultry. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 290, rising to 330 in 2002. [Efraim Orni]

KEFAR JAWITZ (Heb. ‫ ; ְּכ ַפר יַ ְע ֵ ּבץ‬Kefar Ya’bez), moshav in the southern Sharon, Israel, near Tel Mond, affiliated to HaPo’el ha-Mizrachi moshavim association. First founded as a moshav in 1932, it suffered from insufficient cultivable land and, situated on what was then the eastern rim of the Jewish settlement zone, it came under frequent attacks in the 1936–39 Arab riots. In the 1948 *War of Independence, Kefar Jawitz was in the line of battle. That year, it was taken over by kibbutz Neẓ er Yissakhar, which later became a moshav shittufi but eventually dispersed. In 1953, a moshav of immigrants from Yemen was established and developed intensive farming (citrus groves, cattle, poultry, flowers, and vegetables). In 1969 there were 360 inhabitants, rising to 496 in 2002 due to expansion. The village is named after the historian Zeev *Jawitz. [Efraim Orni]

61

kefar kanna

KEFAR KANNA (Kenna; Ar. Kafr Kanna), a village in Galilee, 4 mi. (6½ km.) N.E. of Nazareth. Owing to its convenient position on the main Nazareth-Tiberias road, it has been identified since Byzantine times with the *Kanah of the Gospels. A mosaic inscription found in the present church of the village indicates that it stands on the ruins of a Byzantine synagogue whose mosaic pavement, according to the inscription, was made by Yose, the son of Tanḥ um, and his sons. A Jewish settlement existed in Kefar Kanna in the 15t–16t centuries; in 1481 there were 80 families there and in 1522, 40 families (as attested by the travelers Obadiah of *Bertinoro and Moses b. Mordecai *Basola). Since its identification with the Kana of the Gospels was firmly established by Quaresmius in the 17t century, several churches were erected in the village and it has been included in the itineraries of pilgrims. It has recently been proposed to identify it with Garis (Jos., Wars, 3:129; 5:474; Life, 395, 412). In 1968, the village numbered 4,550 inhabitants, the majority Christian (Greek-Orthodox, Roman, and Greek Catholic), and the rest Muslim. Over the years, the ratio between Christians and Muslims has been reversed, so that by the end of 2002 the majority of Kefar Kanna’s population (16,100 residents) were Muslims. The population growth rate is a high 2.7 per year. Income in 2000 was about half the national average. In 1968 Kefar Kanna received municipal council status. Its jurisdiction extends over 4.1 sq. mi. (10.7 sq. km.). In the vicinity of Kefar Kanna there is a large industrial area employing workers from all over the region and including cinder block and tire factories. Bibliography: Clermont-Ganneau, in: PEFQS, 43 (1901), 374ff.; P.D. Baldi, Enchiridien Locorum Sanctorum (1955), 205ff.; Abel, Geog, 2 (1938), 291–2. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KEFAR KISCH (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ִק ׁיש‬, moshav in eastern Lower Galilee, Israel, about 2½ mi. (4 km.) E. of Kefar Tavor, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim. It was founded in 1946 by demobilized soldiers who in World War II served with the Royal Engineer Corps and other units. The original settlers established a moshav shittufi, but most of them left in the ensuing years, and in 1953, Kefar Kisch was renewed, this time as a moshav, by immigrants from Poland, Romania, and Hungary. Its principal farming branches were field crops, fruit orchards, and dairy cattle. In 1969 there were 189 inhabitants in Kefar Kisch and in 2002 around 300. The moshav is named after Frederick H. *Kisch.

stituted the principal farming branches. Kefar Malal’s name is composed of the initials of Moses *Lilienblum. In 1967 its population was 270, rising to 443 in 2002. [Efraim Orni]

KEFAR MANDI (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ַמנְ דִּ י‬, village in Galilee, the seat of R. Issachar (TJ, RH 1: 3, 57a). A document found in the Cairo *Genizah indicates that in 1065 Jews lived there, in particular one Abraham b. David al-Kafrmandi. Later travelers located the tombs of *Akavyah b. Mahalalel, and Rabban *Simeon b. Gamaliel, in the village. Arab sources, confusing Mandi with Midian, located there the tomb of Ṣ affūra (*Zipporah), the wife of Moses, and the well from which he rolled the stone, which was shown to travelers. The tombs of Athīr (*Asher) and *Naphtali, sons of Jacob, were also placed there. The present-day Arab village Kafr Mandā, with an area of 4.1 sq. mi. (10.7 sq. km.), is situated between Tiberias and Acre, 8 mi. (c. 13 km.) north of Nazareth. In 1964 it received municipal council status. In 1968, it had 3,180 inhabitants, increasing to 13,800 in 2002. Olive and other fruit trees, field crops, sheep, and cattle have constituted its principal farming branches. Bibliography: Assaf, in: Tarbiz, 9 (1937/38), 201; A.-S. Mannardji, Textes Géographiques Arabes… (1951), 175–6. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KEFAR MASARYK (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ַמ ַּס ִריק‬, kibbutz in the Haifa Bay area, Israel, S. of Acre, affiliated to Kibbutz Arẓ i haShomer ha-Ẓ a’ir. It was founded as a *stockade and tower settlement in 1938 by pioneers from Czechoslovakia. The partly brackish swamps near the Na’aman Stream mouth required, in the first years of the settlement, concentrated reclamation and drainage work. Beside intensive farming branches (field crops, orchards, fishery, dairy cattle, and poultry), the kibbutz has also developed industrial enterprises such as a plant producing printed cartons, a company servicing satellite equipment, and an R&D plant for electronic devices. Its population was 480 in 1967 and 592 in 2002. It is named after Tomáš G. Masaryk, first president of Czechoslovakia. Website: www.kfar-masaryk.org.il. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR MALAL (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ַמ ָּל״ל‬, moshav in the southern Sharon, Israel, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim, first founded on privately owned land in 1911 and named Ein Ḥ ai. It was destroyed in the battles of World War I. Renewed by a laborers’ group after the war, it was again destroyed in the 1921 Arab riots, but was rebuilt as a moshav in 1922, when the land became *Jewish National Fund property. In the 1929 Arab riots, Kefar Malal successfully repelled several attacks. Its settlers hail from Eastern Europe. Citrus groves and dairy cattle con-

KEFAR MENAḤ EM (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ְמנַ ֵחם‬, kibbutz in the southern Coastal Plain of Israel, about 9 mi. (14 km.) S.E. of Gederah, affiliated to Kibbutz Arẓ i Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir. The original settlers set up a moshav on the site in 1936, but the local soil and security conditions were inimical to the smallholder type of settlement, and the moshav group moved west to found *Kefar Warburg. In 1937, the village was refounded as a kibbutz by a group composed of pioneers from North America, Germany, and Poland. The kibbutz developed intensive farming (field crops, poultry, and dairy cattle) and industrial enterprises (a quarry, ceramics plant, and metal plant). In 1968, it had 555 inhabitants, rising to 600 in the mid-1990s but then

62

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

[Efraim Orni]

kefar rosh ha-nikrah

dropping to 460 in 2002. The kibbutz is named after Menaḥ em Mendel *Ussishkin. Website: www.kfar-menachem.org.il. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR MONASH (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר מוֹ נַ ׁש‬, moshav in the central Sharon (Ḥ efer Plain), Israel, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim, founded in 1946 by demobilized soldiers who had served with the British Royal Engineer Corps in World War II. They were later joined by settlers from South Africa and other countries. Kefar Monash was initially a moshav shittufi and engaged in farming and maintained a photolithographic printing plant. Later it became a moshav based exclusively on farming. The main farming branches included citrus groves, flowers, and turkeys. The moshav is named after the Australian Sir John *Monash. The land on which the moshav was founded is part of Wadi Kabani in the eastern *Ḥ efer Plain, acquired through contributions of Australian Jewry. In 1967 it had 320 inhabitants. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 450, further increasing to 690 in 2002 after expansion. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR MORDEKHAI (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ָמ ְרדְּ כַ י‬, moshav in the Coastal Plain of Israel, W. of Gederah, affiliated to Ha-Iḥ ud ha-Ḥ akla’i (middle-class settlers’ association), founded in 1950 by pioneers from England. It was later joined by newcomers from Australia and other English-speaking countries, and by Israeli-born settlers. Citrus groves and dairy cattle constituted its principal farming branches. Kefar Mordekhai is named after Mordecai *Eliash, Israel’s first minister in Great Britain. Its population in 1968 was 230 rising to 305 in the mid-1990s and 476 in 2002. [Efraim Orni]

KEFAR NEBURAYA (Nibborayya; Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר נִ בּ וֹ ַר ָ ּיה‬, village in Upper Galilee, the home of Jacob of Kefar Neburaya, a popular preacher of the third century C.E., who was often in conflict with the rabbinical authorities and was suspected of heresy (TJ, Yev. 2:5). It has been identified with Khirbat alNabratayn, a ruin 2.5 mi. (4 km.) north of Safed. Here were found the remains of an ancient synagogue measuring 55 by 39 ft. (17 × 12 m.) whose facade is oriented toward Jerusalem. Inside are two rows of four columns. The limestone lintel is decorated with a laurel garland and a menorah within a wreath. An inscription added to the lintel in 564 C.E. records the reconstruction of the building by Ḥ anina son of Lezer (Eliezer) and Luliana (Julianos) son of Judah. A sculptured figure of a lion was also found there. Bibliography: H. Kohl and C. Watzinger, Antike Synagogen in Galilaea (1916), 101ff.; Alt, in: pjb, 21 (1925), 37; Avigad, in: brf, 3 (1960), 49ff. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KEFAR NETTER (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר נֶ ֶטר‬, moshav in the southern Sharon, Israel, about 4 mi. (7 km.) S. of Netanyah, initially a member of Tenu’at ha-Moshavim, but later unaffiliated. It was ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

founded in 1939 by graduates of the *Mikveh Israel agricultural school. After 1948, Kefar Netter was enlarged when new immigrants from Poland settled there. Its farming was highly intensive, but subsequently only citrus groves and avocado plantations have remained. In 1967 the population was around 420; in 2002, 510. The moshav is named after the founder of Mikveh Israel, Charles *Netter. Website: www.kfar-neter.co.il. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR OTNAY (Otnai; Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר עוֹ ְתנָ ִאי‬, ancient village, 24 Roman mi. from Caesarea, 24 from Scythopolis (Beth-Shean), and 16 from Sepphoris. It is defined in talmudic sources as the farthest limit of Galilee in the direction of Judah and anyone passing it was considered to have left Galilee (Git. 7:7). It was the hometown of R. Shemaiah, a pupil of R. Johanan b. Zakkai, and the patriarch Gamaliel occasionally visited there. Samaritans living in the vicinity (Git. 1:5) cultivated vegetables on the land of the village (Tosef., Dem. 5:23). In the time of Hadrian, Kefar Otnay (Gr. Caparcotnei – Καπαρκοτνεί) was chosen as the camp of the sixth legion and renamed *Legio. Previously proposed identifications with Kafr Dān or Kafr Qūd are no longer accepted. Bibliography: Ramsay, in: JRS, 6 (1916), 129; Alt, in: ZDPV, 68 (1951), 57ff. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KEFAR PINES (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ּ ִפינֶ ס‬, moshav in the northern Sharon, Israel, affiliated to Ha-Po’el ha-Mizrachi moshavim association. The settlers, from Poland, Germany, and other countries, founded Kefar Pines in 1933. Citrus orchards, dairy cattle, and poultry constituted its principal farm branches. The moshav is named after Yehiel Michael *Pines. In 1967 its population was 400, increasing to 730 in the mid-1990s and 972 in 2002 after expansion. [Efraim Orni]

KEFAR ROSH HANIKRAH (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר רֹאש ַה ִ ּנ ְק ָרה‬, kibbutz in the Acre Plain, Israel, near the Lebanese border, on the slope of the Rosh ha-Nikrah-Ḥ anitah ridge, affiliated to Iḥ ud haKevuẓ ot ve-ha-Kibbutzim. It was founded in 1949 by a group of Israeli-born youth. In addition to highly intensive farming (field crops, bananas, avocado orchards, citrus groves, poultry, dairy cattle, fruit trees) the kibbutz operated a cafe on top of the Rosh ha-Nikrah Cape (which forms part of Sullam Ẓ or, the Ladder of *Tyre separating the Acre and Tyre plains), near the police frontier post, and a cable car leading down to the sea grottoes of the cape. In addition, the kibbutz had a holiday village with a spa. Below Rosh ha-Nikrah Cape, to the south, was the Israel Police Force rest resort. In 1969 Kefar Rosh haNikrah had 318 inhabitants. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 560, while in 2002 it decreased to 491. The name Rosh ha-Nikrah (“Headland of the Cleft”) is derived from the Arabic name for the spot Raʾs al-Nāqūra. Website: www.kfar-rosh-hanikra.co.il. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

63

kefar ruppin

KEFAR RUPPIN (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר רו ּ ִּפין‬, kibbutz in the Beth-Shean Valley, near the Jordan River; founded in 1938 as a *stockade and watchtower settlement by pioneers from Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, later joined by immigrants from other countries. From 1967, Kefar Ruppin, situated within close firing range of the Jordanian positions beyond the river, endured frequent shelling and sniping. The kibbutz engaged in intensive farming, including branches adapted to the local hot climate, e.g., date palms, which withstand soil salinity, and field crops, fishery and ornamental fish, poultry, and dairy cattle. In addition, the kibbutz operated the Palkar Co. for fencing and storage facilities. For a time, the kibbutz was a center for nutria fur production. An international birdwatching center is located in the kibbutz. Its population rose from 310 in 1967 to 448 in 2002, with families becoming economically independent. The kibbutz is named after Arthur *Ruppin. Website: www.kfar-ruppin.org.il. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR SAVA (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ָס ָבא‬, town in central Israel, in the southern Sharon, near the Arab village Kafr Sābā. Ḥ ibbat Zion bought the holdings in 1892, but settlement began in 1896 when the land was taken over by Baron Edmond de *Rothschild, who invested considerable sums in an abortive experiment to raise plants for perfume. In 1903 part of the land was bought by *Petaḥ Tikvah farmers for farmsteads for their sons, and almond orchards became the principal farming branch. The Turkish authorities, however, did not issue permits to build houses, so the place remained largely empty until 1912, when permits were finally granted. A eucalyptus grove was planted in the place where about 1,000 inhabitants of Tel Aviv set up camp in 1917 after the Turks expelled them from their homes; the following year, several hundred died there in a typhus epidemic. In September 1918 Kefar Sava, which lay in the front line of battle between the Turko-German and Allied armies, was entirely destroyed. The settlers soon returned and rebuilt their houses, but Kefar Sava was again laid waste in the 1921 Arab riots. In the following years, local abundant groundwater resources were discovered and the developing citrus branch attracted investors and provided a solid foundation for Kefar Sava’s economy. From the end of the 1920s, the struggle for Jewish labor on Jewish farms focused on Kefar Sava and became more violent in the 1930s when a number of kibbutzim set up their temporary camps there prior to their permanent settlement in other parts of the country. The number of Kefar Sava’s inhabitants grew from 450 in 1927 to 3,500 in 1941. From the end of the 1930s, immigrant housing quarters were built and partly provided with auxiliary farms. During World War II industrial plants were established, primarily for citrus preserves, as fresh fruit could not be exported at the time. In the Israeli *War of Independence (1948) Kefar Sava lay again in the front line facing the “Arab triangle” of Samaria; fighting died down only after the neighboring Arab village Kafr Sābā was taken by Jewish forces and abandoned by its inhabitants. After 1948 Kefar Sava’s population rapidly grew, approaching

64

20,000 when it received city status in 1962. In 1969 Kefar Sava had 23,000 inhabitants. By the mid-1990s the population had risen to approximately 65,800, and in 2002 it was 77,800. The municipal area is 5.8 sq. mi. (15 sq. km.). Kefar Sava serves as an administrative, commercial, and health-service center for the south Sharon region. The large Me’ir Hospital (which, in its initial years, specialized in lung diseases) and Bet Berl, a teachers college, seminary, and study center, are located there. The city also has a large industrial area. Website: www.kfar-saba.muni.il. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR SHEMARYAHU (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ׁ ְש ַמ ְריָ ה ּו‬, semi-rural Israeli settlement with municipal council status in the southern Sharon. Kefar Shemaryahu is named after Shemaryahu *Levin. Founded in 1937 as a middle-class moshav by immigrants from Germany, from the outset it was based on intensive farm branches, primarily poultry breeding, with its farmers belonging to the Ha-Mo’aẓ ah ha-Ḥ akla’it association. From the 1950s, its proximity to the *Herzliyyah beach and the extension of the Tel Aviv conurbation caused its gradual transformation into a middle-class garden suburb, which has also developed as a recreation and entertainment center. A writers’ and artists’ house was opened there. Besides smaller industrial enterprises, it housed the Tene-Nogah central dairy. In 1969, the village numbered 1,260 inhabitants, becoming an upscale community. In 2002 its population was 1,790 residents, occupying a square mile (2.5 sq. km.) Website: www.kfar.org.il [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR SHIḤ LAYIM (Heb. ‫יחלַ יִ ים‬ ְ ‫) ְּכ ַפר ׁ ִש‬, village in Idumea, probably identical with the Sallis in which the Jewish general Niger took refuge after an unsuccessful assault on Ashkelon (Jos., Wars, 3:20). According to talmudic sources, Kefar Shiḥ layim was a large village, which was destroyed either in the First Jewish War against Rome or in the war of Bar Kokhba (Lam. R. 2:2, no. 4). The inhabitants of the village grew cress (shiḥ lah). A man from the village appeared before R. Tarfon in the early second century (TJ, Jer. 16:5, 15d). The location of the village of Saleim, mentioned by Eusebius (Onom. 160:9–10) as lying seven Roman miles west of Eleutheropolis (Bet Guvrin), seems to correspond to that of Kefar Shiḥ layim. This would place the ancient site of Khirbat Shaḥ la, 2 mi. (3.2 km.) east of ʿIrāq al-Manshiyya. The suggested identification with the biblical Shilhim (Josh. 15:32) is doubtful. Bibliography: Loew, Flora, 1 (1924), 50ff.; P. Romanoff, Onomasticon of Palestine (1937), 215ff. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KEFAR SYRKIN (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ִס ְיר ִקין‬, moshav in the Coastal Plain of Israel, E. of Petaḥ Tikvah; affiliated to Tenu’at haMoshavim; founded in 1936 by veteran agricultural laborers, who were soon joined by immigrants from Germany and other countries. In 1968, Kefar Syrkin had 570 inhabitants, ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kefar warburg

rising to 931 in 2002. The settlers engaged in various farming branches, such as fruit orchards, poultry, and the operation of a horse ranch. The moshav is named after the Zionist labor leader Nachman *Syrkin. [Efraim Orni]

KEFAR SZOLD (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר סֹאלְ ד‬, kibbutz on the eastern outskirts of the Ḥ uleh Valley, Israel, affiliated to Ha-Kibbutz haMe’uḥ ad. It was founded in 1942 by pioneers from Hungary, Austria, and Germany, later joined by new members from South America and other countries. Until the *Six-Day War (June 1967) Kefar Szold was a constant target for the Syrian artillery position on the Golan slopes. Its farming was intensive, based on field crops, apple orchards, citrus groves, poultry, and cattle. The kibbutz also operated a factory producing batteries and rented guest rooms. In 2002 its population was 455. The kibbutz is named after Henrietta *Szold. [Efraim Orni]

KEFAR TAVOR (Heb. ‫ ; ְּכ ַפר ָּתבוֹ ר‬initially better known by its Arab name Mesḥ ah), moshavah at the foot of Mt. Tabor, Israel, 10½ mi. (17 km.) N.E. of Afulah, founded in 1901 by the *Jewish Colonization Association as one of the villages based on the settlers’ own labor, with grain cultivation as a principal branch. Until World War I, Kefar Tavor was a center for the activity of *Ha-Shomer, the first armed Jewish defense organization in Ereẓ Israel. Lack of water impeded the village’s economic progress for many years. Later field and fruit crops have constituted its main farming branches. In 1968 its population was 315. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 1,140 and by the end of 2002 it had doubled to 2,290 owing to the expansion of the moshavah, with the majority of residents no longer farmers and income well above the national average. The village extends over an area of 4 sq. mi. (10.6 sq. km.). [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR TRUMAN (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר ְטרו ַּמן‬, moshav in the Coastal Plain of Israel, N.E. of Lydda, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim, founded in 1949 by immigrants from Poland. Its economy was based on intensive farming. It is named after the former U.S. president Harry S. Truman. In 1968 its population was 251, rising to about 330 in the mid-1990s and 483 in 2002. [Efraim Orni]

KEFAR URIYYAH (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר או ִּר ָ ּיה‬, moshav in the Judean Foothills, Israel, 6 mi. (10 km.) N.E. of Bet-Shemesh, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim. The land at Kefar Uriyyah was purchased by individuals in 1909, and a workers’ group established a farm there in 1912. After World War I, some of the proprietors went to settle, but progress was slow, due to lack of water and difficulty of access. In the 1929 Arab riots, the village was abandoned. A group of Kurdish Jews, who had previously worked as stonecutters in Jerusalem, settled there in 1943. The isolated village came under frequent attacks from ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

its Arab neighbors in the War of Independence and had to be evacuated (1948). In 1949, a moshav was set up there by immigrants from Bulgaria when the new road connecting Tel Aviv and Jerusalem provided access to the site. The initial difficulties confronting the moshav resulted in a frequent turnover of settlers. In the 1950s, ample groundwater resources were discovered and these eventually supplied the bulk of Jerusalem’s water needs. The name is based on the Arabic Kafrūriyya, which may have its root in an ancient Hebrew name, perhaps Kefar Aryeh – “Lion’s Village” (a nearby site was called in Arabic Khirbat al-Asad – “Lion’s Ruin”). Remnants of ancient buildings and tombs were found there. Its population in 1968 was 255, rising to 315 in the mid-1990s and 416 in 2002. [Efraim Orni]

KEFAR VERADIM (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר וְ ָר ִדים‬, town in northern Israel. Kefar Veradim lies on the northern slopes of Mt. Eshkar in western *Galilee, 2,100 ft. (641 m.) above sea level, 11 mi. (18 km.) east of *Nahariyyah. The municipal area extends over 1.8 sq. mi (4.7 sq. km.). The settlement was founded in 1982 on the initiative of the industrialist Steff *Wertheimer. The establishment of the settlement was part of a plan to develop the region industrially and attract new settlers by creating an attractive upscale urban setting. In 1993 Kefar Veradim received municipal council status. By the end of 2002 the population had reached 5,030 inhabitants, with a high annual growth rate of 3.1. Website: www.kvol.co.il. [Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR VITKIN (Heb. ‫ית ִקין‬ ְ ִ‫) ְּכ ַפר ו‬, moshav in the central Sharon (Ḥ efer Plain), Israel, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim. It was founded in 1933 by a group of veteran agricultural workers who were the first to come to the Ḥ efer Plain (early 1930) and reclaim its wastes. Kefar Vitkin became the largest moshav in the country with over 1,100 inhabitants in the late 1940s and 845 in 1968. Orange groves, dairy cattle, poultry, orchards, and flowers were the mainstays of its intensive farming. By 2002 the moshav’s population had risen to 1,480 due to expansion. Several central regional institutions were situated in Kefar Vitkin, which is named after Joseph *Vitkin. [Efraim Orni]

KEFAR WARBURG (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר וַ ְרבּ ו ְּרג‬, moshav in the southern Coastal Plain of Israel, near Be’er Toviyyah, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim. It was founded in 1939 by a group of experienced agricultural laborers, joined by immigrants from different countries. They had previously settled at *Kefar Menaḥ em and defended it in the 1936–39 Arab riots, but moved to the present site which appeared better suited to the moshav type of settlement. Its farming is highly intensive. In 1968 Kefar Warburg had 500 inhabitants, rising to 745 in 2002. The moshav is named after Felix *Warburg. [Efraim Orni]

65

kefar yasif

KEFAR YASIF (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר יָ ִסיף‬, a large village at the foot of the mountains of Upper Galilee, about 7 mi. (10 km.) N.E. of Acre. The antiquity of the name Kefar Yasif is alluded to in the Septuagint, which instead of “Hosah,” the portion of Asher (Josh. 19:29), reads ʾΙασιφ. The Jewish antiquity of the locality is evident from the stone door of a burial cave which is preserved at the Louvre in Paris. On it appear reliefs of a candelabrum and an ark. A stone tablet which is affixed over the door of one of the houses of the village bears reliefs of a candelabrum, a shofar (ram’s horn), and a lulav (palm branch). In Crusader times it was a village called Cafersi in the territory of *Acre. As a result of the revival of Acre at the beginning of the 16t century, the Jewish settlement of Kefar Yasif was also renewed. It is reflected in the responsa of the rabbis of Safed and in the tax lists of the Ottoman archives of Istanbul. As one of the ten 16t-century Jewish village settlements in Galilee, its inhabitants also engaged in agriculture. Taxes were paid from the cotton crops. With the renewed impetus of Jewish settlement in Acre during the first half of the 18t century, a new Jewish settlement was created in Kefar Yasif. This settlement also engaged in agriculture and observed the laws applicable to the Land of Israel. The community left in 1707 as a result of an attack of locusts, but was renewed by the kabbalist R. Solomon Abbadi in 1747 who sought, under the protection of Sheikh Dhaher el-ʾAmr, the ruler of Galilee, to establish a Torah center. The last settlement ceased to exist at the end of the first half of the 19t century (1841). The number of Jewish settlers fluctuated from 10 families in 1702, to 20 in 1764, to 15 in 1827. The present inhabitants of the village point to a “Jewish quarter.” With the revival of the Jewish settlement in Kefar Yasif during the 18t century, the village became the burial site for the Jews of Acre (and not during the 13t–14t centuries as generally thought) because, according to the halakhah, it is doubtful whether Acre forms part of Ereẓ Israel or not. Upon their death, the wealthy of Acre were borne to Kefar Yasif on the shoulders of their pallbearers. Others preferred to be buried near the sacred tomb of “*Hushai the Archite” in the Druze village of Yirkah (3 mi. (5 km.) to the east of Kefar Yasif). The poor were buried on the eastern side of the walls of Acre. The custom of burial in Kefar Yasif was abolished either after the riots of 1929 or those of 1936. [Joseph Braslavi (Braslavski)]

Kefar Yasif is now an Arab village with 7,820 inhabitants in 2002 (up from 3,470 in 1968), the majority Greek Catholic and Greek Orthodox and the rest Muslim (57 Christians, 43 Muslims). Kefar Yasif has been governed by a municipal council since 1925. Its jurisdiction extends over an area of 2.6 mi. (6.7 sq. km.), with the village economy historically based on olive plantations, tobacco, and livestock as well as some intensive mixed farming, workshops, and small factories. In 2000 income was about half the national average. [Efraim Orni]

66

Bibliography: R. Dussaud, Les Monuments Palestiniens et Judaïques (1912), 88; R. Gottheil and W.H. Worrell, Fragments from the Cairo Genizah (University of Michigan Studies, 13, 1927), 263; Rivkind, in: Reshumot, 4 (1925), 332–44; B. Lewis, Notes and Documents from the Turkish Archives (1952), 9, 16, 18, 20–21; Braslavi, Le-Ḥ eker Arẓ enu (1954), 123–8; idem, in Ma’aravo shel ha-Galil (1961), 179–98; idem, in Ma’aravo shel Galil ve-Ḥ of ha-Galil (1965), 147–52; I. Ben Zvi, She’ar Yashuv (1965), 132–47.

KEFAR YEḤ EZKEL (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר יְ ֶחזְ ֵקאל‬, moshav in the Harod Valley, Israel, N.W. of *En-Harod, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim. It was founded in 1921 as one of the first settlements in the valleys of Jezreel and Harod, by a group of pioneers of the Second and Third Aliyah. Farming at Kefar Yeḥ ezkel was intensive, diversified, and fully irrigated. The moshav operates a tourist center that features a robotic dairy. The moshav is named after Yeḥ ezkel *Sassoon, whose contribution aided the Jewish National Fund in financing the purchase of the Jezreel and Harod valley lands. In 1968 it had a population of 440. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 591; in 2002, 610, with expansion underway. Website: www.kfar-y.co.il. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR YEHOSHU’A (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר יְ הוֹ ׁ ֻש ַע‬, moshav in the western Jezreel Valley, Israel, affiliated to Tenu’at ha-Moshavim. It was founded in 1927 by a pioneer group, mostly from Russia, many of whom had been members of *Gedud ha-Avodah. In 1968 Kefar Yehoshu’a had 645 inhabitants; in 2002, 674. Like its neighbor *Nahalal, it was laid out in a circular pattern on the architect Richard *Kaufmann’s blueprints. A mosaic in honor of Kaufmann is located in the center of the moshav. The moshav has a regional museum principally displaying the history of settlement in the Jezreel Valley. At the entrance to the moshav is a reconstruction of the historic Ha-Emek train station on the line that once linked Haifa to Damascus. It is named after Yehoshua *Hankin, who was instrumental in purchasing the Jezreel Valley lands. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEFAR YONAH (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ַפר יוֹ נָ ה‬, rural settlement, possessing municipal council status, in central Israel, about 4 mi. (7 km.) E. of Netanyah, founded in 1932 by veteran farm workers from Nes Ẓ iyyonah, followed soon afterwards by other settlers. The village’s establishment was aided by the Belgian Zionist Jean Fischer Fund. Based mainly on citriculture, the village expanded and introduced small industrial enterprises during World War II to take the place of citrus which no longer had export outlets. With the mass immigration to Israel beginning in 1948, Kefar Yonah grew considerably when a large immigrant camp (*ma’barah) in the vicinity, Shevut Am (Bet Lid), later transferred part of its inhabitants to permanent housing in Kefar Yonah. In 1968, the settlement had 2,650 inhabitants. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 5,650, and by the end of 2002 it had nearly doubled to 10,900, attracting ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kelal yisrael

city dwellers seeking a rural environment. The settlement’s area is about 5 sq. mi. (12.7 sq. km.). Its name commemorates Jean (Yonah) *Fischer. [Ephraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KEHIMKAR, Ḥ AYIM SAMUEL (1830–1909), historian of the *Bene Israel community in Bombay (Mumbai). Born in Alibag on the Konkan coast like many in his community he became a civil servant in Bombay. In 1853 he founded the Bombay Bene Israel Benevolent Society. In 1875 he and his two brothers opened a school in Bombay which taught both Marathi and Hebrew. He was the editor of the periodical Israel, which appeared until 1885, and his work Sketch of the History of the Beni-Israel and an Appeal for Their Education was published in 1892. On his death, he left in manuscript his “History of the Bene-Israel of India,” a mine of information on the history and customs of the Bene Israel community, which was published in Tel Aviv in 1937 on the initiative of Immanuel *Olsvanger. Bibliography: H.S. Kehimkar, History of the Bene-Israel of India (1937), iii–viii. Add. Bibliography: S.B. Isenberg, India’s Bene Israel: A Comprehensive Inquiry and Sourcebook (1988); J.G. Roland, Jews in British India: Identity in a Colonial Era (1989). [Walter Joseph Fischel]

°KEIL, KARL FRIEDRICH (1807–1888), German Bible critic, born in Lauterbach, Saxony. Keil was appointed to the theological faculty of Dorpat in Estonia where he taught Bible, New Testament exegesis, and Oriental languages. In 1859 he was called to serve the Lutheran church in Leipzig. In 1887 he moved to Rödletz, where he died. Keil was a conservative critic who reacted strongly against the scientific biblical criticism of his day. He strongly supported Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He maintained the validity of the historico-critical investigation of the Bible only if it proved the existence of New Testament revelation in the Scriptures. To this aim he edited (with Franz *Delitzsch) his principal work, a commentary on the Bible, Biblischer Kommentar über das Alte Testament (5 vols., 1866–82; Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, 5 vols., 1872–77). The work remains his most enduring contribution to biblical studies. He also published commentaries on Maccabees and New Testament literature. Add. Bibliography: A. Siedlecki, in: DBI, 2:18–19. [Zev Garber]

to capture David with the help of the inhabitants, who were ready to betray him, David escaped into the desert. In postExilic times, Keilah served as the headquarters of a district divided into two parts (Neh. 3:17, 18). The Keilah whose figcakes are mentioned in talmudic literature (TJ, Bik. 3:3, 65c) may be another place on the other side of the Jordan River. Eusebius refers to Keilah as a village 8 mi. (12¾ km.) from Eleutheropolis (Bet Guvrin) on the way to Hebron (Onom. 114:15ff.). A tomb of Habakkuk is located near the village in Onomasticon 88:27 and by Sozomenus (Historia Ecclesiastica 7:2). Keilah is identified with Khirbat Qīlā, 10 mi. (16 km.) northwest of Hebron. Bibliography: Alt, in: PJB, 21 (1925), 21–22; 24 (1928), 26–27; Albright, in: BASOR, 15 (1924), 4; Beyer, in: ZDPU, 54 (1931), 222, n. 5; Aharoni, Land, index. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KEITEL, HARVEY (1939– ), U.S. actor, producer. The son of a Polish mother and Romanian father, Keitel was born and raised in Brooklyn, New York. He enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps at the age of 16 and served in Lebanon. Following his return to the U.S., he worked as a court reporter before being accepted at the New York Actors Studio, where he studied under legendary teachers such as Lee *Strasberg, Stella *Adler, and Frank Corsaro. In 1967, Keitel began his long relationship with director Martin Scorcese, as the two made their respective feature film debuts in Who’s That Knocking at My Door. Five years later, Keitel and Scorcese made their breakthrough with Mean Streets (1973). Keitel’s relationship with Scorcese continued throughout his career in acclaimed films such as Taxi Driver (1976), Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974), and The Last Temptation of Christ (1988). Keitel continued to work with distinctive directors on such breakthough films as Ridley Scott’s The Duellists (1977), James Toback’s Fingers (1978), Paul Schrader’s Blue Collar (1978), and Betrand Tavernier’s La Mort en direct (1980). Keitel’s stature as an actor grew with his 1991 portrayal of gangster Mickey Cohen in Bugsy, for which he was nominated for an Oscar, and continued with his role as a detective in Thelma and Louise (1991). In 1992, Keitel’s performance as Mr. White in Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs sustained his successful run, followed by important roles in such films as Abel Ferrara’s The Bad Lieutenant (1992) and Jane Campion’s The Piano (1993). Later work includes Smoke (1995), From Dusk Till Dawn (1996), U-571 (2000), Little Nicky (2000), Red Dragon (2002), and National Treasure (2004). [Walter Driver (2nd ed.)]

KEILAH (Heb. ‫) ְק ִעילָ ה‬, city of Judah, in the fourth district of the kingdom, together with Achzib and Mareshah (Josh. 15:44; cf. I Chron. 4:19). It is first mentioned in the *el-Amarna letters, in connection with disputes between the king of Jerusalem and the kings of the Shephelah (nos. 279, 280, 287, 289, 290). In I Samuel 23:7 it is described as a town with gates and bars, threshing floors, and cattle. Attacked by the Philistines, it was defended by David, then a fugitive outlaw. When, after the defeat of the enemy, Saul approached the town intending

KELAL YISRAEL (Heb. ‫“ ; ְּכלָ ל יִ שְׂ ָר ֵאל‬Jewish community as a whole”), a term employed when discussing the common responsibility, destiny, and kinship of all members of the Jewish community. The rabbis declared that “all Israel are sureties one for another” (Shevu. 39a); and sinners must be rebuked because the entire community is ultimately responsible for their wrongdoings. Nevertheless, the rabbis recognized that a community will always possess some sinners and the Midrash

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

67

kelen, imre

interpreted the *Four Species as symbolizing four categories of Jews ranging from those who possess both Torah and good works to those who possess neither (Lev. R. 30:12). The unity of the Jewish nation was considered an historic and spiritual concept, in addition to being a social reality. All subsequent generations of Jews (including proselytes) were viewed as having been present at Mount Sinai and sharing in the responsibilities of the covenant with God (Shevu. 39a). Likewise, the righteous of all generations will be reunited at the time of the resurrection of the dead during the messianic period (Maim., Commentary to Mishnah, Sanh. 10:1). This concept of community and shared fate is a more concrete version of the aggadic notion, often found in the Midrash, of *keneset Yisrael, i.e., “the community of Israel” as a spiritual and even mystical entity. The term keneset Yisrael is often used in aggadic literature as a personification of Israel in its dialogue with God and its faithfulness to Him. It praises the Almighty who in turn praises keneset Yisrael (Tanḥ ., Ki-Tissa 18). The latter is also described as the mother of every Jew; the father is the Almighty Himself (Ber. 35b). Keneset Yisrael also boasts that “never did it enter the theaters and circuses of the heathen peoples to make merry and rejoice” (Lam. R., introd., p. 6). In the Zohar, God and keneset Yisrael are one when together in Ereẓ Israel. The community of Israel in exile is not united with God until it emerges from captivity and returns to its land (Zohar, Lev. 93b). In modern times the concept of kelal Yisrael was further developed and utilized by Solomon *Schechter in defining change and development within Jewish law. Schechter held that the collective conscience of “catholic” Israel as embodied in the “universal synagogue” was the only true guide for determining contemporary halakhah. His viewpoint was an elaboration upon the talmudic principle “Go forth and see how the public is accustomed to act” (Ber. 45a). Bibliography: S. Schechter, Studies in Judaism, 1 (1896), xviiiff.

KELEN, IMRE (Emery or Emerich; 1895– ), cartoonist. Kelen, who was born in Győr and won the Hungarian Military Cross in World War I, made his name with his caricatures of the statesmen at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. Not long afterward he went to live in Switzerland, where in 1922 he began his collaboration with another Hungarian Jew, Aloysius Derso (1888–1964). Together the two men attended the League of Nations and major international conferences, and the Kelen-Derso cartoons appeared in many European newspapers over the next 15 years. In 1938 they emigrated to the United States, where they continued their collaboration until 1950. Collections of their work include Guignol and Lausanne (1922), Indian Round Table Conference (1930), Le Testament de Genève (1931), Pages Glorieuses (1932), The League at Lunch (1936), and Peace in Their Time (1963). Kelen also wrote children’s books. From 1948 to 1957 he was adviser to and then director of the United Nations Television Service in New York, and in 1966 published a biography of the former secretary-general of the UN, Dag Hammarskjöld.

68

KELETI, AGNES (Klein; 1921– ), Hungarian gymnast, the most successful Jewish female Olympian in history, winner of 11 medals including five gold, four silver, and two bronze, member of the International Gymnastics Hall of Fame and the Hungarian Sports Hall of Fame. Keleti began to study gymnastics at the age of four in Budapest, winning her first national title at 16, the first of 10 national titles in her career. She began focusing on the 1940 Olympics, but World War II caused the cancellation of the Games. At the beginning of the war Keleti’s father was sent to Auschwitz, while her mother and sister were saved by Swedish diplomat Raoul *Wallenberg. Keleti purchased the papers of a Christian girl and escaped to a small Hungarian village, where she worked as a maid. After the war, she learned that her mother and sister had survived the concentration camps, but that her father and all her other relatives had been murdered at Auschwitz. Keleti made the 1948 Hungarian gymnastic team, but an injury caused her to miss Olympic competition. She was nonetheless awarded a silver medal when Hungary finished second in team competition. At the 1952 Helsinki Olympics, Keleti – by now an “old” 31 – won a gold medal in the Floor Exercises, silver in the Combined Team competition, and a bronze in both Team Hand Apparatus and Uneven Parallel Bars. She also finished fourth in the Balance Beam, and sixth in the Individual All-Around. In 1954, Keleti captured the World Championship in Uneven Bars, and her Hungarian team won the silver medal in Team Exercises (portable apparatus). She also took the bronze medal in the Balance Beam, and finished fourth in the Floor Exercise. Keleti won the All-Around Hungarian Championships 10 straight times from 1947 to 1956. At the 1956 Melbourne Olympics, Keleti – now at the advanced age of 35 – won gold medals in the Free-Standing Exercise, Balance Beam, Parallel Bars, and Team Combined Exercise (portable apparatus), and silver medals in the individual all-around and team all-around competitions. Four weeks before the opening of the Games the Hungarian Revolution began, with the Soviet Union sending troops into Hungary to quash a revolution aimed at ending the country’s Communist domination. Two weeks after the revolt, Keleti and the rest of the Hungarian team left for the Melbourne Olympics and, once there, Keleti refused to return home, defecting to the West. She was able to get her mother and sister out of Hungary, and in 1957 they settled in Israel, where Keleti became an instructor in physical education at the *Wingate Institute, where she developed a number of national gymnastic teams. Keleti’s total of 10 Olympic medals ranks third alltime among women athletes, and her five gold medals rank fourth all-time for individual winner of Olympic gold medals. Keleti was inducted into the Hungarian Sports Hall of Fame in 1991 and the International Gymnastics Hall of Fame in 2002. [Elli Wohlgelernter (2nd ed.)]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kellerman, faye

KELIM (Heb. ‫“ ; ֵּכלִ ים‬vessels”), first tractate of the Mishnah order of Tohorot. Including vessels of all kinds, the term also embraces clothing, furniture, and weapons – indeed any artifact, utensil, or implement. This tractate deals in 30 chapters with the law of ritual purity affecting the different kinds of kelim: the scriptural basis is in Leviticus 11:29–35; 15:4–6, 9–12, 19–27; Numbers 19:14–16, 31:19–24. Being the first, the longest, and the most important tractate of the order Tohorot, this tractate was itself sometimes referred to as Tohorot (e.g., in the commentary to Tohorot ascribed to Rav Hai Gaon, ed. Epstein). Because of its inordinate length this tractate was divided into three parts, of ten chapters each, respectively designated Bava Kamma, Bava Meẓ ia, and Bava Batra (the first, middle, and last gate), but this nomenclature survived only in the Tosefta. The first chapter, which is a kind of introduction, sets out the various degrees of impurity and sanctity. Chapters 2–10 deal with earthen vessels, including ovens (Lev. 11:35), and vessels with a close-bond covering (Num. 19:15). Chapters 11–14 cover metal vessels, 15–19 vessels of wood, leather, bone, etc. Chapter 20 discusses the problem of midras, indicated in Leviticus 15:26. Chapters 21–25 deal with artifacts composed of various parts and pieces, e.g., plow, saw, table, riding equipment, etc., and chapters 26–28 deal with leatherware and garments, etc. Chapter 29 deals with the incidental parts of garments and vessels, like cords, handles, etc., and chapter 30 deals with glassware. The last halakhic statement in the tractate is that an afarkas of glass (clepsydra, or waterclock) does not receive impurity; it thus ends on a note of cleanness, which makes R. Yose exclaim: “Blessed art thou, O Kelim, for thou didst enter in uncleanness, but art gone forth in cleanness.” This shows that an early version of this tractate, with the same name, existed prior to the Mishnah of Judah ha-Nasi. There is in addition some evidence that many anonymous parts of the tractate are according to him. Certain other characteristics of Kelim are also in accordance with Yose’s usages. Rich in valuable detail on daily life, Kelim contributes much to knowledge of the material culture of the tannaitic period. It has also preserved many Greek, Latin, and other words, which were then in popular use. Though there is no Talmud to Kelim, all the sayings concerning it which can be found in various Babylonian tractates were collected and arranged in the form of the usual Gemara by R. Gershon Ḥ anokh Leiner, and printed by him, with his commentaries in Sidrei Tohorah (1873), a work of cardinal importance to the understanding of this complicated tractate. J.N. Epstein has written a short but important commentary on Kelim which sheds much light for the modern student (Tanna’im, 479–94). Mishnah Kelim was translated into English by H. Danby (The Mishnah, 1933), and J. Neusner published a translation of both the Mishnah (1991) and the Tosefta (2002) of Tohorot.

(1939); J. Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Laws of Purities (1974–77), vols. 1–3; D. Sperber, Material Culture in Eretz-Israel (Hebrew) (1993); Mishnayot Da’at Eliahu, Kelim (chs. 11–14), (2005). [Arnost Zvi Ehrman]

KELLER, MORTON (1929– ), U.S. historian. Born in New York, Keller received his B.A. from the University of Rochester (1950) and his M.A. (1952) and his Ph.D. from Harvard University (1953). He taught at the North Carolina and Pennsylvania universities, and in 1964 became chairman of the history department at Brandeis University. Specializing in late 19t- and 20t-century American history, he lectured at Harvard and at the University of Sussex, England. After retiring from teaching, Keller became the Spector Professor of History emeritus at Brandeis and a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution. In 1999 he was named resident scholar at Rockefeller Center at Bellagio and librarian of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is the author of In Defense of Yesterday: James M. Beck and the Politics of Conservatism, 1861–1936 (1958), The Life Insurance Enterprises, 1885–1910 (1963), The Art and Politics of Thomas Nast (1968), Affairs of State (1977), Regulating a New Society (1990), Regulating a New Economy (1990), and Making Harvard Modern (with P. Keller, 2001). He edited The New Deal: What Was It? (1963) and Theodore Roosevelt (1967); and co-edited Taking Stock: American Government in the 20t Century (1999). [Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

Bibliography: Epstein, Tanna’im, 459–94; 71ff.; J. Brand, Kelei ha-Ḥ eres be-Sifrut ha-Talmud (1953). Epstein, The Gaonic Commentary on the Order Toharot (Hebrew), (1982); idem, Kelei Zekhukhit be-Sifrut ha-Talmud (1978); S. Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim, vol. 3

KELLERMAN, FAYE (1952– ), U.S. mystery writer. Born in St. Louis, Mo., Kellerman grew up in Los Angeles. She earned a bachelor’s degree in mathematics and a D.D.S., both from the University of California at Los Angeles. She never practiced dentistry, however, and was a full-time mother of four before publishing her first novel, The Ritual Bath (1986), in which she introduced a series with a Los Angeles police officer, Sgt. Peter Decker, and Rina Lazarus. In the book, Decker is called to investigate a rape charge in an isolated Orthodox Jewish community. Lazarus, a young widow who found the victim, guides Decker through her suspicious community as all the signs point to the rapist’s first crime not being his last. Kellerman’s writing frequently deals with Jewish themes and characters, incorporating them into the framework of the traditional mystery. Her debut novel won the 1987 Macavity Award for best first mystery. Since then, she has published more than 15 mysteries, with titles like Milk and Honey, Day of Atonement, False Prophet, Grievous Sin, Sanctuary, Prayers for the Dead, and The Stone Kiss. Kellerman is a practicing Orthodox Jew, as is her husband, the novelist Jonathan *Kellerman. They are believed to be the only married couple ever to appear on the New York Times bestseller list simultaneously (for two different books). “Religion is a major factor in my life,” Faye Kellerman said in an interview in 1999. “I consider myself a modern Orthodox Jewish woman with attachments to my synagogue, my children’s religious school, and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

69

kellerman, jonathan

the community at large.” In another interview, she explained: “The religion in the books comes from personal experience. I have a great deal of love for my religion. I felt that maybe I could transmit some of that feeling and emotion. Also, I felt that people would enjoy learning about the rites and rituals of Orthodox Jewry the same way I enjoy learning about other cultures and religions.”

commentary 1914–16). There was much controversy over the translation, due to the fact that some passages contain an inaccurate rendering of the thoughts expressed in the original text (see S. Rubin, in: mgwj, 63 (1919), 71–74).

[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

[Bernard Suler]

KELLERMAN, JONATHAN (1949– ), U.S. mystery writer, psychologist. Kellerman, who was born in New York City and grew up in Los Angeles, received a bachelor’s degree in psychology from the University of California at Los Angeles and a doctorate in psychology from the University of Southern California, where he became clinical professor of pediatrics at the School of Medicine. His internship and postdoctoral fellowship were at the Children’s Hospital/School of Medicine, where he became founding director of the Psychosocial Program, Division of Hematology-Oncology. He is the author of numerous articles in the scientific and popular press, three books on psychology, including Psychological Aspects of Childhood Cancer and Helping the Fearful Child, two children’s books, Daddy, Daddy, Can You Touch the Sky? and Jonathan Kellerman’s ABC of Weird Creatures, which he also illustrated, and about 20 consecutive bestselling novels. After a decade of nonsuccess in his writing career, his first published work, When the Bough Breaks (1985), sold more than a million copies and kick-started his career. He has continued at a rate of about one a year since. Most of the books feature a pair of friends, Dr. Alex Delaware, a sensitive child psychologist, and the more macho Milo Sturgis of the Los Angeles Police Department, who happens to be a homosexual. Some of his novels, like Dr. Death, about a self-styled euthanasia champion, seem to have been inspired by people in the news or by then-current news events. All are considered fast-paced, intense, and edgy. Like his wife, Faye *Kellerman, he is a practicing Orthodox Jew.

KELLNER, LEON (1859–1928), professor of English literature and one of Herzl’s early friends and advisers. Teaching in various schools, and after a scholarship at the British Museum in London (1887), he became a lecturer in English literature at the University of Vienna in 1890. Besides his employment at a high school in Vienna he continued his lectures at the University in 1894–1904. From 1904 to 1914 he was a professor at the University of Czernowitz, where he was active in public life as a representative of the Jewish-national list to the Landtag (local parliament). When World War I broke out, Kellner flew to Vienna. After the war he served as an English expert in the office of the president of the Austrian Republic (Praesidentenkanzlei). He gave lectures at the Technical University and at the adult college in Vienna. From the publication of his first article (1884), he was active in scholarly writing, mainly in the research of English literature. He published critical editions of English texts, grammar books, an English-German, German-English dictionary, a dictionary of Shakespeare, and a history of English and American literature. His works were highly successful and were published in several editions because of their attractive style, even in purely academic subjects. He also published articles, stories, and feuilletons in newspapers and periodicals in English and German. In 1896 he made the acquaintance of Herzl and was invited by him to edit the Zionist organ Die *Welt, but did not accept. He contributed to Die Welt from its first issue (at first under his own signature and later under the signature Leo Rafaels), and in 1900 edited the paper. Kellner assisted Herzl by opening many locked doors in England and was one of his closest associates. Herzl wrote of him in his diary: “Kellner, my best and dearest friend, whose visits are rays of light in the murk of all these worries” (March 26, 1898), “he knows more than anybody about my intentions” (May 27, 1898); Herzl even requested that Kellner publish his diary. Kellner fulfilled his request by publishing a selection of Herzl’s writings in two volumes (Theodor Herzl’s Zionistische Schriften, 1908), by aiding the publication of the diaries, and beginning to write a comprehensive biography of Herzl, of which only the first part Theodor Herzl’s Lehrjahre was published (1920).

[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

KELLERMANN, BENZION (1869–1923), rabbi and author. Born in Gerolzhofen, Bavaria, he served as instructor in religion in Berlin, Frankfurt, and Konitz, and in 1917 was appointed rabbi of the Berlin community. A disciple of Hermann *Cohen, he based his religious philosophy and his rational concept of Judaism as ethical monotheism on the teachings of that German-Jewish philosopher. Kellermann was the author of the following works: Kritische Beitraege zur Enstehungsgeschichte des Christentums (1906); Liberales Judentum (1907); Der wissenschaftliche Idealismus und die Religion (1908); Der ethische Monotheismus der Propheten und seine soziologische Wuerdigung (1917); Das Ideal im System der Kantischen Philosophie (1920); and Die Ethik Spinozas, ueber Gott und Geist (1922). He also translated the major part of the medieval philosophical work Milḥ amot Adonai (Die Kaempfe Gottes) by *Levi b. Gershom (introduction and four tractates, with extensive

70

Bibliography: I. Husik, in: jqr, 7 (1916/17), 553–94; 8 (1917/18), 113–56, 231–68; L. Baeck, in: Juedisches Gemeindeblatt (Berlin, July 6, 1923); Liebert, in: Kant-Studien, 28 (1923), 486–90.

Bibliography: A. Kellner, Leon Kellner (Ger., 1936); P. Arnold, in: Herzl Yearbook, 2 (1959), 171–83; idem, in: B. Dinur and I. Halperin (eds.), Shivat Ẓ iyyon, 4 (1956), 114–60; idem, Zikhronot beAhavah (1968). Add. Bibliography: H. Arnold, in: Neue Deutsche Biographie, 11 (1977), 477–78; Lexikon deutsch-juedischer Autoren, vol. 13 (2005), 348–57. [Getzel Kressel / Archiv Bibliographia Judaica (2nd ed.)]

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kelsen, hans

KELMAN, WOLFE (1923–1990), U.S. rabbi and administrator. Born in Vienna, the scion of a Ḥ asidic dynasty, Kelman’s family moved to Toronto, Ontario, where he was educated in the public schools. He served in the Royal Canadian Air Force during World War II and earned a B.A. from the University of Toronto in 1946 and then entered the Jewish Theological Seminary, from which he was ordained in 1950. At the urging of Chancellor Louis Finkelstein, Kelman became the director of the Rabbinical Assembly in 1951, a position that was variously called executive secretary, executive director, and finally as executive vice president. The titles changed but not the job. Under his leadership the Rabbinical Assembly grew from 300 rabbis to 1,200 in 12 countries. For the first 15 years of his tenure he served as the head of the Joint Placement Commission during a time of the most rapid expansion of the Conservative Movement, and thus became a matchmaker between rabbis and their congregations. He facilitated the placement of non-seminary graduates from Yeshiva University and even Torah Vadaat along with the seminary graduates. In total, he placed more than 1,500 rabbis in their positions. Kelman’s greatest contribution to the rabbinate was to ensure rabbis were paid a professional salary and that they and their families were treated with dignity. In one instance, Kelman threatened to stage a march of one hundred rabbis for the media if a particular congregation dared to cast a widow and her children out of the parish home without providing for them. Kelman was a confidante of his teacher Abraham Joshua *Heschel throughout Heschel’s and Rabbi Joseph Baer *Soloveitchik’s negotiations with the Vatican and Pope Paul VI regarding Nostra Aetate. He also marched with Heschel in Montgomery and pleaded with him to make major addresses to White House Conferences on Education and Aging. Kelman mentored Elie *Wiesel when he was a young and relatively unknown rabbi. Colleagues in other movements praised Kelman. The Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion awarded him an honorary doctorate shortly before his death. Under his leadership the Rabbinical Assembly became economically viable, most especially from its publishing division. Toward the end of his career, he led the admission of women into the hitherto all male rabbinate. From 1986 he served as the chairman of the American section of the World Jewish Congress. He was also the director of the Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies. The son of an Orthodox rabbi and the son-in-law of a Reform rabbi, Kelman was an early believer in religious pluralism. His own son Levi led a neo-Ḥ asidic Reform Congregation in Jerusalem.

may have been in existence for several hundred years; its synagogue was said to be 300 years old, and there was a tradition that its reconstruction had been financed by a Polish landlord, Graszewsky. The Jewish population numbered 759 in 1847, and 2,710 (69 of the total) in 1897. The town became associated with the “Kelmer Maggid” Moses Isaac Darshan. According to the 1923 census there were 1,599 Jews living in Kelme. Most were occupied as small shopkeepers and artisans, but there were also grain and timber merchants, and owners of brush factories and tanneries. Communal institutions included two Jewish elementary schools (*Tarbut and Yavneh), a Jewish preparatory school, and a bank, among others. A number of prominent scholars served as rabbis in the town, among them Eliezer *Gordon, later rabbi of Telsiai. A musar yeshivah in Kelme was established by Simḥ ah Zissel *Broida, which also attracted students from other places; it existed until World War II. During World War II, Kelme was occupied by the Germans shortly after the outbreak of the war between Germany and Soviet Russia. Most of the Jews were murdered in July and August 1941. Bibliography: H. Karlinski, in: Lite, 1 (1951), 1438–51; M. Karnovich, ibid., 1 (1951), 1846–50; Yahadut Lita, 1 (1959), index; 3 (1967), 350–2. [Joseph Gar]

KELME (Lithuanian Kelme˚; Rus. Kelmy; Yid. Kelm), town in W. central Lithuania. It became known as a center of the *musar movement in Lithuania. The Jewish community there

KELSEN, HANS (1881–1973), jurist, whose “pure theory of law” made him one of the most famous legal theoreticians of the 20t century. Born in Prague, Kelsen was taken to Vienna when he was 14. He studied at the universities of Vienna, Heidelberg, and Berlin, and was professor of constitutional and administrative law and of legal philosophy at the University of Vienna from 1919 to 1929. In 1920 he drafted the constitution of the Austrian Republic and was a judge of the supreme court of Austria from 1920 to 1929. Kelsen was professor of law at Cologne University from 1929 until 1933, when, although baptized, he was compelled to resign his post. He taught at the Institut des Hautes Etudes Internationales in Geneva until 1940 and at the University of Prague before he immigrated to the United States. He became professor of political science at the University of California in 1944. The breakdown of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the interwar tragedy of frustrated democracy in Austria, led him to a theory of law transcending nations and states. While he was professor of law at Vienna University, Kelsen founded the so-called Vienna school of jurisprudence, which preached the “pure theory of law.” Originally developed 20 years earlier in his Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre (1911), the “pure theory” is a logical analysis of the law considered as a system of norms. A “basic norm” (Grundnorm) stands at the head of the system: this gives validity to the whole of the legal order and all the legal rules in the order may be ultimately referred to it. The “pure theory of law” was the result of a vigorous campaign by Kelsen to treat law as a science free from sociological and political elements, even though he recognized that each

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

71

[Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]

kemal mustafa

country’s legal system must be determined by the state. This approach brought him into open conflict with communist doctrines, which subjected law to the political structure of the state, and with sociological jurisprudence, which regarded law as reflecting the society in which it existed. The climax of Kelsen’s theory was a vision of the unification of legal systems within a framework of international law which would establish a universal legal order. Although his “pure theory of law” has been subject to widespread criticism and rejected by most schools of jurisprudence, Kelsen has greatly influenced legal thinking in the 20t century. Kelsen was a prolific writer and his works have been translated into almost every European language (Russian being a noteworthy exception). Bibliography: G.A. Lipsky (ed.), Law and Politics in the World Community; Essays on Hans Kelsen’s Pure Theory… (1953); S. Engels (ed.), Law, State, and International Legal Order (1964). Add. Bibliography: R. Walter, “Hans Kelsen,” in: H. Erler, E.L. Ehrlich, and L. Heid (eds.), Meinetwegen ist die Welt erschaffen, (1997), 333–38; D. Diner, Hans Kelsen and Carl Schmitt – A Juxtaposition (1997); I. Englard, “Nazi Criticism Against the Normativist Theory of Hans Kelsen,” in: Israel Law Review, 32:2 (1998), 183–249; K. Bruckschwaiger, Die Rolle von Philosophie und Politik bei Hans Kelsen (2002); S.L. Paulson, Hans Kelsen – Staatsrechtslehrer und Rechtstheoretiker des 20. Jahrhundert (2005); G.N. Dias, Rechtspositivismus und Rechtstheorie – Das Verhaeltnis beider im Werke von Hans Kelsen (2005); R.C. van Ooyen, Der Staat der Moderne – Hans Kelsens Pluralismustheorie (2003); P. Hack, La philosophie de Kelsen (2003). [Josef J. Lador-Lederer]

°KEMAL MUSTAFA (Ataturk; 1881–1938), Turkish general and statesman, founder of the Republic of Turkey and its first president (1923–38). Endowed with far-sighted vision and boundless energy, he was responsible, after the defeat of the *Ottoman Empire in World War I and its dismemberment, in leading the remnants of the Ottoman army to victory. No less significantly, he shaped Turkey into a state with institutions modeled on West-European patterns, aiming to achieve a modern society. What was noteworthy in his reforms was the comprehensiveness of his approach and his drive to institute change in practically all walks of life, from the roots up. His most important reforms in modernization and secularization (he limited, intentionally, the influence of *Islam) were the following: The creation of a modern republican state structure with a constitution (proclaimed in 1924), a freely elected parliament (for which women could vote), the founding of a political party (as an agent of modernization), recruitment of a modern bureaucracy, building a new capital in Ankara, disestablishment of religion by secularizing education and the courts, emancipation of women both politically (by giving them the right to vote) and socially (by instituting monogamy and discouraging the veil), adoption of the Latin instead of the Arabic alphabet, and reformation of the Turkish language. Mustafa Kemal set out to change the mentality of his people in order to induce them to adopt and support his reforms. He never tired of lecturing them on their proud past

72

(and insisted on a patriotic school curriculum in history as well as on historical research at the universities). He insisted on symbols that would enhance love for the fatherland and increase national solidarity for nation-building. The single party he headed was mobilized for these ends and for promoting the reforms within parliament and outside it. While Turkey’s economy did not improve visibly, other aspects covered by the reforms did, largely carried out due to his impressive charisma. Jews and other religious groups were freed from all limitations imposed by the late Ottoman Empire and considered equal citizens. Of course, equality had some drawbacks such as the laws instituting Turkish as the language of instruction (instead of minority languages) in the entire school system. However, Mustafa Kemal should be remembered, also, for his magnanimous and far-sighted decision to invite about 300 professors, physicians, and lawyers, most of them Jewish, from Germany, during the 1930s (along with their extended families), thus rescuing them from Nazi persecution (and worse) and raising the level of teaching and research in Turkey’s universities, where many were offered academic appointments. Bibliography: The best bibliography on Mustafa Kemal is still the 3-vol. compilation of Mozaffer Gökman, Atatürk ve devrimleri bibliyografyasi (1963–1977). See also: R. Mantran, “Atatürk,” in: EIS2, 1 (1960), 734–35; Lord Kinross, Atatürk: The Rebirth of a Nation (19642 ); A. Kazancigil and E. Özbudun, Atatürk: Founder of a Modern Nation (1981); J.M. Landau, “New Books about Atatürk,” in: Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, 75 (1983), 183–92; idem, Tekinalp: Turkish Patriot (1984); idem (ed.) Atatürk: Founder of a Modern Nation (1984); L. Macfie, Atatürk (1994); E.J. Zürcher, Turkey: A Modern History (1997); A. Mango, Atatürk (1999); F. Tachau, “German Jewish Emigrés in Turkey,” in: A. Levy (ed.), Jews, Turks, Ottomans (2002), 233–45; G.E. Gruen, “Turkey,” in: R.S. Simon a.o. (eds.), The Jews of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times (2003), 303–15. [Jacob M. Landau (2nd ed.)]

KEMELMAN, HARRY (1908–1996), U.S. author. Kemelman wrote entertaining novels of detective fiction in which the hero is a rabbi-sleuth, David Small. They include Friday the Rabbi Slept Late (1964), Saturday the Rabbi Went Hungry (1966), and Sunday the Rabbi Stayed Home (1969). He also published The Nine Mile Walk (1967), a collection of stories originally published in Ellery Queen’s Magazine. KEMÉNY, SIMON (1882–1945), Hungarian poet and editor. In his emotional impressionist poetry, he overcame his tendency to religiosity. Kemény, a converted Jew, was murdered during the last days of the siege of Budapest by Hungarian Nazis. His main work is Lamentàciok (“Lamentations,” 1909). KEMPEN, town in the Rhineland, Germany. The first settlement of Jews in Kempen must have taken place sometime before 1288, when persecutions claimed 17 victims, among whom was a Torah scribe, Isaac, and a young boy, Abraham, who was burned to death. In the 14t century Jews originatENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Kempner, Aviva

ing from Kempen are found in *Cologne. Kempen Jews were allowed to deal in meat, and to slaughter both for themselves and for non-Jews, but they had to use the public scales and pay a fee to the weight master. In 1330, in return for a loan of 8,000 marks, the archbishop of Kempen granted the Jews of Kempen protection and citizenship. However, in 1347 another persecution drove a number of Jews from the town, and this was followed soon after by the *Black Death persecutions in which Jews also suffered. In 1385 Jews are recorded as living in a Judengasse northeast of the market. There are no further traces of permanent Jewish settlement in the city until 1807, when under French rule there were 32 Jews in Kempen under the authority of the Krefeld consistory. A synagogue was consecrated in 1849; in 1854 there were 125 Jewish families affiliated to it, 26 of them (92 persons) living in the town of Kempen. From 1854 to 1922 the community had its own elementary school. In 1895 the number of Jews in the city of Kempen was 103 (1.5), in 1925; 80 with another 500 or so living in the county. At the beginning of the 1930s there were 150 Jewish families in the county, and 23 of them (70 persons) dwelling in the town. The synagogue was destroyed in 1938. On July 25, 1942, about 200 Jews were deported from Kempen, mainly to *Theresienstadt. Bibliography: A. Kober,… Aus der Geschichte der Juden im Rheinland… (1931); Germ Jud, 2 (1968), 395–6.

KEMPF, FRANZ MOSHE (1926– ), Australian artist and printmaker. Born in Melbourne, Kempf studied different subjects, among them art at the National Gallery School in Australia. In 1956 he went to Italy and studied with Oskar Kokoschka in Salzburg in 1957. He focused not only on art but also on illustration and technological design and became a lecturer in printmaking. As president of the Contemporary Art Society of South Australia, he lectured in graphic art at the South Australian School of Art, becoming head of the department in 1969. During the same time he was also chairman of the Australian Jewish Art Group. Kempf, from an absolutely assimilated background, turned to the ḥ asidic path of Chabad and became a strictly observant Jew. His work reflects his deep involvement with Judaism. Both his paintings and his prints contain biblical and ḥ asidic themes, ranging from the shtetl to the messianic portrayal. Kempf ’s style tends towards the semiabstract, but his statements are definite. His painting unites profundity of theme with subtlety of expression. The End of Days (by S. Gorr, 1968) was illustrated by Kempf with four original etchings composed specially for the text. His works have been acquired by the city galleries of all the Australian state capitals, by the National Gallery in Canberra, and others in the U.K. and Israel. He has also had exhibitions in the U.K., U.S., Europe, and Israel. Kempf ’s publications are “Art in Israel,” in Broadsheet (Contemporary Art Society, 1965); “Polish Printmakers 1972,” in Art and Australia (1973); “Sculpture in South Australia,” in Art and Australia (1974); and Contemporary Australian Printmakers (1976). ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Add. Bibliography: D. Peters, Franz Kempf and Karin Schepers, Museum of Modern Art and Design (1964); R. Brooks, Franz Kempf (1991).

KEMPINSKY, AHARON (1939–1994), Israeli archaeologist. Brought up in Nahariyyah, Kempinsky participated as a teenager in 1952–53 in P. *Delougaz’s excavations at Bet Yeraḥ . His academic studies were undertaken at the Hebrew University and it was there that he acquired his M.A. and eventually his Ph.D. In time he became a professor of archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, and taught at BenGurion University in Beersheba as well. As a student at the Hebrew University, Kempinsky worked as Professor Nahman *Avigad’s assistant at Makhmish. Many archaeological excavations followed, some of which he directed, at Palmaḥ im (1961), Hazor (1965–66), Megiddo (1965), and Bet ha-Emek (1973). In 1972–75, and again in 1979, Kempinsky (with V. Fritz) uncovered an important early Iron Age village at Tel Masos, not far from Beersheba. In 1975 Kempinsky made a short excavation at Tel Kabri, which was followed by an intensive project there (conducted together with W.D. Niemeyer) from 1986 to 1993. At Kabri a Middle Bronze Age building (perhaps a palace) was exposed, with wall and floor paintings resembling those from Thera (Santorini). Kempinsky was an insatiable reader with an encyclopedic mind; he also traveled all over the world and was a visiting scholar at various universities and colleges, notably at Tuebingen University in 1975. Kempinsky was a prolific writer and wrote many research papers on a diverse number of subjects. Important publications include The Architecture of Ancient Israel from the Prehistoric to the Persian Periods, which he co-edited with Ronny Reich, and the final reports on the Tel Masos and Kabri excavations. Kempinsky was a mentor for many of the younger generation of archaeologists in Israel. Bibliography: C. Dauphin, “Aharon Kempinsky (1939– 1994), Friend and Colleague: An Evocation,” in: Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society, 13 (1993–94), 63–66. [Shimon Gibson (2nd ed.)]

KEMPNER, AVIVA (1946– ), U.S. director-writer. Kempner was born in Berlin, Germany, to Chaim Kempner and Helen (née Ciesla). Kempner’s Lithuanian father, an immigrant to the United States who served in the U.S. Army during World War II, met Kempner’s Polish mother after liberation. Kempner’s family moved to Detroit, Mich., in 1950. She graduated from the University of Michigan in 1969 with a bachelor’s degree in psychology and in 1971 earned her master’s in urban planning. In 1976, she earned her law degree from the Antioch School of Law. Inspired by her own family’s Holocaust legacy, Kempner turned to Josh Waletzky for help in writing and directing Partisans of Vilna (1986), a film about Jewish resistance against the Nazis which was produced by The Ciesla Foundation, a nonprofit organization that Kempner established in 1981 to produce and distribute films about social and public interest issues. Kempner wrote the narration

73

kempner, harris

for Promises to Keep (1988), an Oscar-nominated documentary about homelessness. A resident of Washington, D.C., Kempner started the Washington Jewish Film Festival in 1989. In 1998, she wrote and directed The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg, a documentary about the Jewish baseball star that won the George Peabody Award. In 2002, she released Today I Vote for My Joey, a comic short inspired by the 2000 election and the candidacy for vice president of Sen. Joseph *Lieberman, which she wrote for AFI’s Directing Workshop for Women. Kempner then went on to work on Gertrude Berg: America’s Molly Goldberg, about the creator, writer, and star of The Goldbergs, a popular 1930s radio show about a Jewish family that went on to become a television series. Kempner reviewed films for The Boston Globe, The Forward, Washington Jewish Week, and The Washington Post, among others, and contributed chapters to the books Daughters of Absence and What Israel Means to Me. [Adam Wills (2nd ed.)]

government appointments, worked on President Roosevelt’s Manhattan Project. From 1945 to 1946 he was a U.S. prosecutor and from 1946 until 1949 chief prosecutor of Nazi political leaders at the Nuremberg Trials. From 1949 he engaged in special research on the Nazi Holocaust of European Jewry. As a consultant to the Israel government, he helped assemble evidence for the *Eichmann trial (1960–61). Subsequently he fought against the Statute of Limitations in West Germany. Kempner practiced law in Frankfurt on the Main in the 1960s. He then moved back to Philadelphia. He wrote numerous books and articles on the Nazi era and related post-war topics, notably Eichmann und Komplizen (1961), containing a description of Eichmann’s activities based on original documents; SS im Kreuzverhoer (1964), based on protocols of war-crime trials; and Edith Stein und Anne Frank, Zwei von Hunderttausend (1968). Kempner’s wife, Ruth Lydia, assembled archives of documents and other materials on Nazi crimes against the churches throughout Europe. [B. Mordechai Ansbacher]

KEMPNER, HARRIS (1837–1894), U.S. financier. Kempner, who was born in Russia, emigrated to the United States at the age of 17. He worked for two years in New York City and then moved to Cold Springs, Texas (1856), where he opened a general store. After fighting for the Confederacy during the Civil War, Kempner returned to his Texas store. He moved to Galveston in 1870 and opened a wholesale grocery business that soon became the largest in the South. This business provided Kempner with the initial capital to move into the railroad, commodities, and banking fields. He provided funds for the building of the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe Railroad, and led the fight that resulted in the line’s subsequent merger with the Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad. In 1885 Kempner became president of the Island City (Texas) Savings Bank. He soon became a major figure in Texas banking, controlling several big Texas banks. The cotton brokerage firm which Kempner founded in Galveston in 1886, with offices in major European capitals, soon became one of the biggest in the South. His eldest son, ISAAC HERBERT KEMPNER (1873–1967), was a businessman, banker, and public servant. An early advocate of the commission form of city government, Kempner served as Galveston city treasurer (1899), city finance commissioner (1901–15), and mayor (1917–19).

KENAANI, DAVID (1912–1982), Hebrew essayist and editor. Born in Warsaw, Kenaani was an active member of HaShomer ha-Ẓ a’ir. He settled in Ereẓ Israel in 1934 and joined kibbutz Merḥ avyah. He began his literary career in the journal Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir in Warsaw in 1932, and wrote extensively on social and literary subjects in the Israel press from a left socialist-Zionist point of view. His books include: LeNogah Eẓ Rakav, an examination of U.Z. Greenberg’s poetry (1950); Beinam le-Vein Zemannam, essays on modern Hebrew literature (1955); and Battei Middot, essays on communal life (1960). He edited, among other publications, a historical atlas (1954); an anthology of Hebrew and Yiddish literature in the past 100 years (1954); an anthology on Soviet Jewry (with A. Shimri, 1957), and the Hebrew edition of *Zinberg’s History of Jewish Literature (6 vols., 1955–60). He was principal editor of an encyclopedia of the social sciences Enẓ iklopedyah le-Madda’ei ha-Ḥ evrah (5 vols., 1962–70). Bibliography: Kressel, Leksikon, 2 (1967), 142. [Getzel Kressel]

KEMPNER, ROBERT MAX WASILII (1899–1993), lawyer and historian. Born in Freiburg, Germany, Kempner became an assistant to the state attorney in Berlin (1926) and later a judge. From 1926 to 1933 he was a senior government adviser in the Prussian Ministry of Interior in Berlin. In this period he demanded that Hitler be tried for perjury and treason. He also officially called for disbanding the Nazi Party and Hitler’s deportation as an undesirable alien. Removed from office on Hitler’s rise to power, he was arrested by the Gestapo, and after his release went to Italy, where he taught until 1939. From there he immigrated to the U.S., where he became a research associate at the University of Pennsylvania and, among other

KENAN, AMOS (1927– ), Hebrew writer. Kenan was born in Tel Aviv. He was a member of the anti-British military underground movement, and he became known during the 1950s as the author of the satirical column “Uzi ve-Shut” in the daily Haaretz. During the following decade he wrote a number of plays which were close in spirit and expression to the Theater of the Absurd, much in vogue in those days, and published his first novella Ba-Taḥ anah (“At the Station”) in 1963. Eschewing realistic narrative, Kenan’s stories resist the familiar pattern of plot and character in favor of an episodic texture which evokes a particular atmosphere and communicates sharp images. Kenan, who voiced “dovish” political views soon after the War of Independence and was co-founder of the Israeli-Palestinian Council in the 1970s, vented subversive political ideas in both his fiction and essay writing. Ha-

74

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kenaz, yehoshua

Derekh le-Ein Ḥ arod (1984; The Road to Ein Harod, 1988) is a fantastic, historiosophical novel, a wild dystopia, the story of an Israeli who, having killed someone, flees for his life towards Ein Ḥ arod in the Jezreel Valley. On the way he meets the Arab Mahmud, who becomes a friend on a bizarre voyage which ends with the realization that the ideas of freedom and decency are no longer to be found in that exemplary kibbutz. The collection Block 23 / Mikhtavim mi-Nes Ẓ iyyonah (1996) contains two apocalyptic novellas which portray a grim picture of future Israel. “Block 23” depicts Tel Aviv after a disastrous war, with its inhabitants living in camps, overshadowed by daily executions and spreading leprosy. Satire and parody are fused with poetic, lyrical descriptions. Shoshanat Yeriḥ o (“The Rose of Jericho,” 1998) is a collection of essays describing landscapes and places in Ereẓ Israel, nature, sounds and flavors, while recollecting biblical episodes and confronting history and shattered dreams. Kenan, known also as painter, sculptor, and Tel Aviv bon vivant, published among others HaDelet ha-Keḥ ulah (“The Blue Door,” 1972), Et Waheb be-Sufah (“Waheb in Sufah,” 1988), and the poems collected under Keẓ Idan ha-Zoḥ alim (“End of Reptile Era,” 1999). For translation see the ITHL website at www.ithl.org.il.

11 (1930), 272ff. (Fr.); Tadmor, in: Kol Ereẓ Naftali, ed. by H.Z. Hirshberg (1967), 65. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

Bibliography: Schuerer, Gesch, 2 (19072), 166; R. Dussaud, Topographie Historique de la Syrie (1927), 362ff.; Dunand, in: Syria,

KENAZ, YEHOSHUA (1937– ), Hebrew prose writer. Kenaz was born in Petaḥ Tikvah. He studied philosophy and Romance languages at the Hebrew University and French Literature at the Sorbonne. Kenaz worked for many years on the editorial staff of the daily Haaretz, and is known also for his masterly translations of French literature into Hebrew. One of Israel’s most prominent prose writers, Kenaz published his first novel, Aḥ arei ha-Ḥ agim (“After the Holidays,” 1987), in 1964, the story of the Weiss family in Petaḥ Tikvah of the Mandate period. Avoiding sentimentality and nostalgia, Kenaz portrays the tense, neurotic relationships between the parents and their two daughters in a dilapidated house which is indeed a metonymy for the disintegration of the family. Hatred, envy, and madness mark the atmosphere in this narrative about the first moshavah in Ereẓ Israel, with strange people, Jews and Arabs alike, frustrated passions, and unfulfilled dreams. Kenaz debunks the idealized and idealistic Zionist project, yet avoids addressing directly the traditional central themes of Hebrew writing. Neither warriors nor kibbutz members are his concern. Instead, he depicts the life of individuals against a prosaic, desolate urban setting, oscillating between the pathetic and the grotesque. Indeed, the unpoetic and the mundane fuel his poetic world. At the heart of his prose is not the heroic, successful, or thriving Israeli, but old, deranged people, losers of sorts, frustrated lovers. The “condition humaine” in a nutshell, set in an urban apartment house, a pattern recurring in Kenaz’s prose, appears for the first time in his second novel Ha-Ishah ha-Gedolah min ha-Ḥ alomot (“The Great Woman of the Dreams,” 1973): The story of the sado-masochistic marriage of Shmulik and Malka and the unhappy relationship of Levanah and Zion is interwoven with the fates of a childless German-Jewish couple, a lonely Hungarian bachelor, and the blind, hypersensitive, and sensual Rosa. Similar in approach are Ha-Derekh el ha-Ḥ atulim (1991; The Way to the Cats, 1994) and Maḥ zir Ahavot Kodmot (1997; Returning Lost Loves, 2001). The Way to the Cats focuses on bodily decrepitude and mental deterioration as well as the loneliness of old people, primarily Yolanda Moskovich, who leaves an old age home and returns to her flat, yet cannot get rid of her paranoia and anxieties. The tragic and the comic, empathy and resentment mark the changing tone in Returning Lost Loves, in which, once again, several plots run in parallel. The central plot revolves around the liaison between a woman past her prime and a married man and is closely related to the story of unrequited love, rape, and murder taking place in the same building. Other episodes unfold the tortuous relationship between a father and his son, an army deserter. In 1980 Moment Musikali (Musical Moment, 1995) appeared, four stories which delineate the end of innocence and rites of manhood. Suffused with sensuality and passion, Kenaz depicts the painful process of maturing and self-awareness. Two novellas entitled Nof im

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

75

Bibliography: A. Zehavi, in: Yedioth Aharonoth (November 23, 1979); G. Shaked, “Namer-ha-Bayit shel Ereẓ Yisrael,” in: Haaretz (March 1, 1985); A. Inbari, “Keriah le-Diyyun Sifruti be-Amos Kenan,” in: Prozah, 101–102 (1988), 25–30; G. Shaked, Ha-Sipporet ha-Ivrit, 5 (1998), 138–144; Y. Kaniuk, “Sefer im Re’aḥ ,” in: Yedioth Aharonoth (December 18, 1998); Y. Reshet, in: Haaretz (January 8, 1999); A. Giladi, in: Haaretz (November 21, 2003). [Anat Feinberg (2nd ed.)]

KENATH (Heb. ‫) ְקנָ ת‬, ancient city of the *Hauran. Kenath is possibly the city mentioned as Qen in the Egyptian Execration texts (19t/18t centuries B.C.E.), Qanu in the list of cities conquered by Thutmosis III (c. 1469 B.C.E.), and Qana in the el-Amarna Letters (no. 204). It was captured by the tribe of Manasseh and named after its leader Nobah; the Arameans later took it from Israel (Num. 32:42; I Chron. 2:23). It was probably taken by Tiglath-Pileser III during his expedition in 733/2 B.C.E. and appears in his inscriptions as [Qa-]ni-te on the border of Aram-Damascus. Kenath, called Canatha in Hellenistic-Roman times, was the site of a battle between Herod and the Nabatean Arabs and in 23 B.C.E. it was given to Herod by the emperor Augustus (Jos., Ant., 15:112; Wars, 1:366). It was a city of the Decapolis (Pliny, Historia Naturalis 5:18; Ptolemeus, 5:14, 18) and apparently the earliest urban unit in the Hauran. Its founding by Pompey is commemorated in its date (64 B.C.E.); its name Gabiniana recalls its building by Gabinius. In the time of Claudius coins were struck there with the images of Tyche, Athena, and Zeus. Septimus Severus made it a colony called Septimia Canotha. It continued to be an episcopal see into Byzantine times (Hierocles, Synecdemus 723:4; Georgius Cyprius 1075). It is the present-day Druze town of al-Qanawāt in Syria.

keneset yisrael

Sheloshah Eẓ im (“Landscape with Three Trees”) appeared in 2000. Undoubtedly one of Kenaz’s finest accomplishments is his novel Hitganvut Yeḥ idim (1986; Infiltration, 2003), the story of a platoon of recruits with minor physical disabilities during their basic training at an army camp sometime in the 1950s. Kenaz offers an impressive Israeli polyphony representing various ethnic and social groups and at the same time a rich texture of unique personal fates. This microcosmos of Israeli life reveals in an imposing, albeit disconcerting, manner the changes which have taken place in Israeli society, and in particular the shifting attitudes to the extolled paradigm of the Sabra, to politics, and to army life. Kenaz was awarded many literary prizes, including the Agnon Prize (1993) and the Bialik Prize (1995). His books have been translated into many languages, and information about translations is available at the ITHL website under www.ithl.org.il.

KENITE (Heb. ‫) ֵקינִ י‬, a large group of nomadic clans engaged chiefly in metal working. The root qyn has the same meaning in cognate Semitic languages, e.g., in Arabic qayna, “tinsmith,” “craftsman”; in Syriac and Aramaic qyn’h, qyny, “metalsmith.” In the Bible the word kayin (qayin) also means a weapon made

of metal, probably a spear (II Sam. 21:16); and the proper noun “Tubal-Cain, who forged all the implements of copper and iron” (Gen. 4:22) is a compound name in which the second noun indicates the trade. There is a connection between this trade and the story of *Cain who wandered from place to place and was protected by a special sign: “Therefore, if anyone kills Cain, sevenfold vengeance shall be taken on him” (Gen. 4:15). Among primitive tribes to the present day there are clans of coppersmiths and tinsmiths whom it is considered a grave offense to harm. The Kenites came from the south: Midian, Edom, and the Arabah. Hobab (*Jethro), son of Reuel the Midianite, who aided the Israelites in the desert and served as their pathfinder (Num. 10:29–32), was also known as the Kenite (Judg. 1:16; 4:11). Enoch, son of Cain (Gen. 4:17), is also mentioned among the Midianites (Gen. 25:4; I Chron. 1:33). Balaam’s prophecy about the Kenites, “Though your abode be secure, and your nest be set among cliffs” (Num. 24:21) appears to be a reference to the mountains of Midian and Edom (cf. Obad. 3–4), and Sela (“cliffs”) designates perhaps the Edomite mountain-fortress Sela (today al-Saʿl near Baṣ rah) around which rich copper deposits were located. The house of Rechab, which had preserved traditions of the time of the Exodus, was related to the Kenites (I Chron. 2:55), and apparently also to Ir-Nahash and Ge-Harashim (I Chron. 4:12–14), modern Khirbet Naḥ ās (“copper ruin,” or “ruin of the copper city”) in the Arabah, a copper mining center. The Kenites were enumerated among the early peoples of Canaan, together with the Kenizzites and the Kadmonites (Gen. 15:19). Relations between the Israelites and the Kenites were good, but B. Stade and others argued for Kenite influence on Moses and the religion of Israel. This “Kenite hypothesis” (updated by Halpern and by van der Toorn) holds that YHWH was not originally the God of the Hebrews and was not even known to the Hebrews. He was originally a Kenite tribal god who became known to Moses through his Kenite father-in-law, Jethro. Moses then made YHWH known to the Hebrews, who accepted Him as their God. As observed by van der Toorn, the Kenite hypothesis nicely accounts for the absence of Yahweh from earlier pantheons, Yahweh’s link with Edom (Deut. 33:2), the Kenite connection of Moses, and the Bible’s positive attitude to Kenites. The major problem comes from the current scholarly view that the majority of Israelites originated in Canaan and did not trek through the desert encountering Kenites all the way as the Bible would have it. The historical role of Moses is likewise problematic. Nonetheless, the important role of the Kenites in early Israelite worship has been emphasized by the discovery of an Israelite sanctuary at *Arad. This explains the note of Judges 1:16 about the Kenite family related to Moses (according to the Septuagint descendants, this venerated family served as priests in the sanctuary). They entered the region from the “city of palm trees,” which cannot here indicate Jericho, but more likely refers to Zoar or Tamar in the northern part of the Arabah. Also, Heber, the Kenite husband or clan of Jael, who was at the time

76

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: G. Shaked, “Lehit’orer min ha-Ḥ alom,” in: Siman Keriah, 11 (1980), 119–24; Z. Shamir, in: Maariv (August 8, 1980); A. Balaban, “Bein ha-Kinor la-Palmaḥ ,” in: Moznayim, 55:4–5 (1982), 52–56; Y. Oren, “Deyukano shel ha-Amman ke-Tiron Ẓ ava,” in: Moznayim, 60, 7 (1987), 76–78; M. Shaked, in: Hadoar, 66:2 (1987), 18–21; N. Amit, “Lehitbager zeh Livgod ba-Ḥ alom,” in: Mibifnim, 49:2 (1987), 146–55; A. Zemach, “Bi-Shlosha Rashim,” in: Prozah, 103–104 (1988), 25–30; Y. Oren, “Mi-Ymei Ẓ iklag le-Hitgannevut Yeḥ idim,” in: Moznayim, 62:5–6 (1988), 117–20; N. Calderon, “Avner Gabai, Kazanovah,” in: Siman Keriah, 20 (1990), 389–93; O. Bartana, “Ma Yadu’a Lahem she-Lo Yadu’a Lanu?,” in: Moznayim, 66:2 (1993), 26–30; N. Ben-Dov, “Separtah ve-Yeladeha ha-Avudim,” in: Alei Siaḥ , 33 (1993), 113–19; N. Levy, Ha-Sipporet shel Y. Kenaz (1994); H. Herzig, Ha-Shem ha-Perati (1994); Y. Laor, Ha-Heterogeniyyut Hi ha-Gehenom,” in: Anu Kotevim Otakh Moledet (1995), 13–49; L. Haber, “Dread and Joy in Y. Kenaz,” in: Midstream, 42:1 (1996), 43–45; N. Levy, Me-Reḥ ov ha-Even el ha-Ḥ atulim: Iyyunim ba-Sipporet shel Y. Kenaz (1997); G. Shaked, Ha-Sipporet ha-Ivrit, 5 (1998), 273–303; Y. Oren, “Ha-Tofet ve-haEden,” in: Moznayim, 75:3 (2001), 43–47; H. Shacham, “Le-Hitpakkeaḥ mi-Ḥ alom, le-Hippared mi-Ḥ azon,” in: Meḥ karei Yerushalayim be-Sifrut Ivrit, 18 (2001), 321–39; K. Alon, in: Alpayim, 26 (2004), 203–12; D. Grossberg, “Y. Kenaz’s Army Novel: a Time for Celebration,” in: Midstream, 50:2 (2004), 38–39. [Anat Feinberg (2nd ed.)]

KENESET YISRAEL (Heb. ‫“ ; ְּכנֶ ֶסת יִ שְׂ ָר ֵאל‬the community of Israel”), a phrase found frequently in rabbinic literature referring to the totality of the Jewish community. Largely identical with *kelal Yisrael, it is used as the personification of the Jewish community in its dialogue with the Almighty. In modern times this title was adopted by the official Jewish community in Ereẓ Israel when it was organized as a corporate entity in 1927 (see *Israel, State of: History 1880–1948). Keneset Yisrael was also the name of a literary and historical annual which appeared in Warsaw, 1886–88.

Kent, Roman R.

of the Deborah battle in northern Ereẓ Israel near Mount Tabor belonged to the Hobab family (Judg. 4:11). It is hardly incidental that they pitched their tent at the oak (Heb. eʾlon) in Zaanaim or Zaananim, evidently a holy tree. Their connection with early Yahwistic worship does not exclude the assumption that for a good part they made their livelihood as metal craftsmen (Judg. 5:26). Other Kenite families evidently occupied the region in the south, centering around Arad. This is the Negev of the Kenites and the cities of the Kenites referred to in the stories from the time of David (I Sam. 27:10; 30:29). These settlements apparently included Kinah near Arad (Josh. 15:22), and possibly Kain on the border of the wilderness of Judah (15:57). In the same region were also found the Amalekites, who wandered in Edom, Sinai, and the Negev, and among whom the Kenites lived. According to the Septuagint, Judges 1:16 should read “and dwelt among the Amalekites” (MT, “among the people (ʿam)”). In view of the kindness the Kenites had shown to Israel during the Exodus (I Sam. 15:6), Saul gave them friendly warning before attacking the Amalekites. Bibliography: Abel, Geog, 1 (1933), 273; W.J.T. PhythianAdams, Israel in the Araba (1934); Th. J. Meek, Hebrew Origins (1936), 93ff; S. Abramsky, in: Eretz Israel, 3 (1954), 116–24; W.F. Albright, in: CBQ, 25 (1963), 3–9 (incl. bibl.); idem, Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (1968), 33–37; Aharoni, in: Land, 185, 198, 259, 298; B. Mazar, in: JNES, 24 (1965), 297–303; R. De Vaux, in: Ereẓ Israel, 9 (1969), 28ff. Add. Bibliography: B. Halpern, in: ABD, 4:17–22; K. van der Toorn, DDD, 910–19. [Yohanan Aharoni / S.D. Sperling (2nd ed.)]

°KENNEDY, JOHN FITZGERALD (1917–1963), 35t president of the United States. John F. Kennedy’s grandfathers were both sons of Irish immigrants who rose to success in Boston Democratic politics. His father, Joseph Patrick Kennedy, was a multimillionaire businessman and an early supporter of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who in 1937 appointed him ambassador to England. Joseph Kennedy was rumored to have expressed antisemitic views, but this was untrue. In any case, his son repudiated all such opinions. After outstanding service in the Navy during World War II, he served the U.S. House of Representatives as a Democrat for the 11t Congressional District in Massachusetts (1946–52). In 1952 Kennedy was elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts and was reelected in 1958. In 1957 Kennedy proposed two bills affecting Jewish immigration, one that included the admission of Middle Eastern Jews to the United States and the other with a clause insuring nonquota status to about 10,000 Jewish refugees from the United Arab Republic. In the pamphlet A Nation of Immigrants (1959) he reviews the role of immigration in U.S. history. In 1960, when he was elected president, Kennedy had the support of an estimated 80 percent of Jewish voters. As president he demonstrated friendship for Israel by tripling the amount of American financial assistance to Israel and by selling the country ground-to-air Hawk missiles in 1962 for ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

protection against air attack. He alerted the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean when subversion in Jordan by the United Arab Republic threatened to undermine the stability of the entire area. He increased the shipments of military supplies when Soviet weapons sent to the Arab states appeared to be giving them arms superiority. He promised United States assistance in the development of a desalination plant to expand Israel’s water and power resources. President Kennedy launched two unsuccessful initiatives aimed at bringing peace to the Middle East. First, he sent personal letters to the heads of all the Arab governments offering the services of the United States government as an “honest broker” in bringing them together with Israel “to find an honorable and humanitarian solution to the disputes, which waste precious energies in the Middle East countries and defer the economic progress which all free peoples truly want to enjoy.” He also sent emissaries to seek a solution to one of the key obstacles to peace, the refugee problem. Some of his speeches and statements on foreign policy are collected in Allan Nevins (ed.), Strategy of Peace (1960); J.W. Gardner (ed.) To Turn the Tide (1962); and E.E. Barbarash (compiler), John F. Kennedy on Israel, Zionism, and Jewish Issues (1965). Bibliography: A.M. Schlesinger, Jr., A Thousand Days (1965); T.C. Sorensen, Kennedy (1965); J.M. Burns, John Kennedy: A Political Profile (1960). [Myer Feldman]

KENT, ALLEGRA (1938– ), U.S. dancer. Kent was born in Santa Monica, California. Her mother, born in Wisznice, Poland, steered the family toward Christian Science and changed their last name from Cohen to Kent. Inspired by George Balanchine’s Night Shadow, Kent studied with Bronislava and Irina Nijinska, and with Carmelita Maracci, and at the School of American Ballet. She joined the New York City Ballet in 1953 and was promoted to principal dancer in 1957, creating roles in such Balanchine ballets as Ivesiana (1954), Agon (1957), Bugaku (1963), and Brahms-Schoenberg Quartet (1966), as well as in Dances at a Gathering (1969) and Dumbarton Oaks (1972) for Jerome *Robbins. In 1962 she made a highly successful tour in the U.S.S.R., dancing in the Kremlin. During her nearly 30 years with the New York City Ballet, she interrupted her career three times to have children. She retired in 1981 to work as a teacher. In 1997 she published her autobiography, Once a Dancer. Bibliography: N. Abrahami, in: P.E. Hyman and D.D. Moore, Jewish Women in America: An Historical Encyclopedia, vol.1 (1997), 735–37.

KENT, ROMAN R. (1925– ), Holocaust survivor and activist. Born in Lodz, Kent was the son of a textile manufacturer. He was confined to the Lodz ghetto with his family in 1939, deported to Auschwitz, transferred to Gross-Rosen and its satellite camps and Flossenberg, and liberated by the Third Army while on a death march. He immigrated to the United States in 1946, under the Orphaned Children’s Quota, as a ward of the U.S. government.

77

kentner, louis

Kent and his younger brother, Leon, were sent to live in Atlanta, Georgia, where Kent graduated from Henry Grady High School with honors and went on to take liberal arts courses at Emory University. He began his successful business as a merchant from the trunk of his car to sharecropper families in the boondocks. He eventually expanded his business and moved to the Empire State Building in New York City and sold houseware on the QVC Network. An active and important leader of the Holocaust survivor movement, Kent worked on a number of major survivor events, including the *American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors in Washington, D.C., in 1983. Kent also produced a movie called Children of the Holocaust in 1980, which won the International Film Festival Award in New York City. The film was narrated by Academy Award-winning actress Liv Ullman. Kent also served as a negotiator for the *Conference on Material Claims Against Germany (the Claims Conference), where he was also the treasurer and a member of the executive board. He was also chairman of the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, Inc., the umbrella organization for survivors in North America. He was vice president of the Jewish Foundation for the Righteous, an organization that supports non-Jews who helped save Jewish lives during the Holocaust. As a member of the Claims Conference, Kent was one of 12 commissioners of the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims created by President Bill Clinton. The commission is chaired by former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger. Kent was also a member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States that settled the claims of the Hungarian Gold Train suit filed by survivors against the United States government. Kent was always known for his outspoken criticism of those who do not understand the urgent needs of impoverished Holocaust survivors living in the United States, Israel, and the rest of the world. He is concerned about monies being misdirected at a time when survivors, he says, “Need to die with dignity.” He has also been a vocal and visible advocate of Holocaust and tolerance education around the world and a supporter of humanitarian causes for all. He wrote a memoir called Strictly Business: Ruminations from Auschwitz to Atlanta, New York and Berlin and a children’s book called Lala: The True Story of a Boy and His Dog during the Holocaust.

his U.S. debut in New York. Kentner was notable for his pianistic elegance, bel canto phrasing, and comprehensive technical mastery. He was praised for his interpretation of works by Mozart, Beethoven, and Chopin. An admired exponent of Liszt, he founded the British Liszt Society and performed his works with authority, eloquence, and color. Kentner also specialized in playing Kodaly and Bartók. He gave the first Hungarian performance of Bartók’s Second Piano Concerto (Budapest, 1933), the European performance of his Third in London (1945), and the British première of the Scherzo, Op. 2 in 1962. As regards British contemporary music, he played the first performances of works by Tippett, Walton, Bliss, and others. As a chamber musician, his long partnership with his brother-in-law Yehudi *Menuhin was noteworthy. His compositions include works for piano as well as songs and orchestral and chamber music. Kentner was made a Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1978. He is the author of Piano (2nd ed., 1991), and a tribute to him by students and admirers (Kentner: A Symposium) was published in 1987. Bibliography: Grove online; V. Harrison, Baker’s Biographical Dictionary (1997). [Max Loppert / Naama Ramot (2nd ed.)]

KENTRIDGE, MORRIS (1881–1964), South African lawyer and politician. Born in Lithuania, he was the son of W. Kantrovich, minister of the Vryheid Hebrew Congregation. He joined the South African Labour Party, was elected to Parliament, and from 1920 until his retirement in 1958 represented a Johannesburg division. Kentridge boldly championed the workers’ cause in the strikes of 1922 and spent some time under detention in consequence. He remained a leading representative of the Labour Party until it lost its influence after the pact with the Nationalists. In 1932 he joined Smuts’ United Party and while on the government front bench helped to frame a considerable volume of progressive industrial legislation. One of the leading Jewish spokesmen in Parliament, he opposed Hertzog’s anti-Jewish immigration laws of the 1930s. During the Hitler period he fought the activities of the South African pro-Nazi agitators. His memoirs, I Recall, were published in 1959. [Lewis Sowden]

KENTNER, LOUIS (Lajos Philip, 1905–1987), British pianist and composer of Hungarian birth. Born in Karwin, Kentner entered the Budapest Royal Academy of Music at the age of six. He studied piano under Szekely and Leo *Weiner, and composition with Kodaly. After his concert debut in 1918, he started a tour throughout Europe. Kentner settled in England in 1935 and was naturalized in 1946. In 1956, he made

KENTRIDGE, SIR SYDNEY (1922– ), South African and British lawyer who won international fame for his work in the human rights field. Born in Johannesburg, he was admitted to the Johannesburg Bar in 1949 and in 1965 was appointed senior counsel. He was called to the English Bar in 1977 and appointed queen’s counsel in 1984. From 1981 to 1986, he served as judge of appeal in Botswana and from 1988 to 1982 he was judge of appeal of Jersey and Guernsey. In his early days at the Bar in South Africa, Kentridge appeared in a number of cases of historical and political significance, during which he represented opponents of South Africa’s race laws that helped entrench white minority rule. He was a leading member of the defense team that successfully defended 30 leading political

78

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

[Jeanette Friedman (2nd ed.)]

kentucky

activists, including future President Nelson Mandela, against charges of treason in the 1958–61 Treason Trial. He subsequently appeared as counsel for the local community and the bishop of Johannesburg, Ambrose Reeves, at the inquiry into the shooting at Sharpeville, 1961, and for the family of Steve Biko at the inquest into his death in 1977. Further afield, he appeared for Stella Madzimabuto in both the then Rhodesia and the Privy Council in her challenge to the legality of the white minority regime of Ian Smith in Rhodesia. Widely regarded as one of the world’s most eminent advocates, he was knighted in 1999 for his international human rights work over the years. Kentridge’s father, Morris *Kentridge, was a longserving Member of Parliament in the Union of South Africa, representing first the Labour Party, and after 1934 the United Party. His son is the artist William Kentridge. [David Saks (2nd ed.)]

KENTUCKY, state in the south central United States. A receipt with a Yiddish notation surviving from 1781 reveals that the firm of Cohen and Isaacs in Richmond, Virginia, paid Daniel Boone for surveying land on its behalf in Kentucky, and other evidence of early Jewish involvement in the area exists as well. The first Jewish settlers in Kentucky arrived at the very beginning of the 19t century, but they were unable to maintain a Jewish life on the frontier. The Baltimore-born John Jacob was apparently resident near Louisville as early as 1802, and Benjamin *Gratz, scion of the famous Philadelphia merchant family, settled in Lexington in 1819; both married gentile women not once, but twice. Jewish communal life began in Kentucky in the 1830s, first in *Louisville and a little later elsewhere. Communal organizations appeared in Owensboro and Paducah, both on the Ohio River, in the late 1850s, and in Lexington just after the Civil War. By the 1870s there were lodges of B’nai B’rith in Louisville, Owensboro, Paducah, and Lexington. In 1880, four synagogue buildings stood in Louisville, one in Owensboro, one in Paducah, and one in Henderson, and the Jewish population of Kentucky was reported to be 3,600, with 2,500 Jews in Louisville, 213 in Owensboro, 203 in Paducah, 140 in Lexington, and the rest in other small towns. By the turn of the 19t century, aside from Congregation Adas Israel in Henderson, Congregation Adath Israel in Owensboro, Temple Israel in Paducah, and a variety of Jewish institutions in Louisville, there was a multi-purpose Spinoza Society in Lexington (founded 1873) as well as Jewish social clubs in Henderson (the Harmony club, founded 1873), Owensboro (the Standard Club, founded 1889), Shelbyville (the Jewish Literary and Social Club, founded 1895), and Paducah (the Standard Club, founded 1903). East European Jews arriving in Kentucky around the turn of the 19t century reinforced existing communities and also established additional Jewish centers. These immigrants founded Congregation Agudath Achim in Ashland in 1896, the United Hebrew Congregation in Newport in 1897, and congregations in Covington, Hopkinsville, and Harlan in the early ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

@
@ @
 @  @
PWFS
 

$PWJOHUPO "TIMBOE -PVJTWJMMF

-FYJOHUPO

,
&
/
5
6
$
,
: 1BEVDBI

5PUBM
+FXJTI
QPQVMBUJPO
PG
,FOUVDLZ

 


PG
+FXT
JO
HFOFSBM
QPQVMBUJPO
PG
,FOUVDLZ




PG
,FOUVDLZ
+FXT
JO
+FXJTI
QPQVMBUJPO
PG
64




Jewish communities in Kentucky. Population figures for 2001.

part of the 20t century. By the time of World War I, Lexington had two congregations: the Reform Adath Israel (founded 1904) and the Orthodox Ohavay Zion (founded 1912). Immigrants established new ethnic and cultural institutions in several small towns as well. In Newport, for example, the Jewish community had created a Free Hebrew School offering programs for both children and adults as early as 1907. By that year, Newport’s Jews also were supporting a branch of the Zionist Po’alei Zion and a Jewish Protective League, demanding better police protection for their community. In Lexington, the poet Israel Jacob *Schwartz (1885–1971) completed his epic Yiddish poem cycle Kentucky in 1922. In 1927, Kentucky’s Jewish population was reported to be 19,500, with 12,500 Jews in Louisville and triple-digit communities in Ashland, Covington, Lexington, Newport, and Paducah. Henderson, Hopkinsville, Owensboro, and the area around Harlan each was home to between 65 and 90 Jewish individuals. Throughout the 19t century and into the 20t, Jews were involved in civic affairs not only in Louisville, but also elsewhere. For example, Abraham *Jonas (1801–1864), brother of Joseph *Jonas, settled in Williamstown in 1827 and was elected several times to the state legislature. Meyer Weil (1830–91) served as mayor of Paducah between 1871 and 1881, and at about the same time the presiding officers of both chambers of the Lexington town council were Jews. Morris Weintraub of Newport (1909–96) was speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives in the 1950s. In the second half of the 20t century, Kentucky’s Jewish population declined and, as elsewhere in the U.S., many small-town Jewish communities deteriorated. By the end of the century, fully functioning congregations and communal institutions could be found only in Louisville and Lexington, although tiny congregations holding occasional services still existed in Owensboro and Paducah. Kentucky’s Jewish popula-

79

kenya

tion was reported as 11,000 in 1960, 13,000 in 1984, and 11,500 at the turn of the 20t century. Bibliography: L.S. Weissbach, The Synagogues of Kentucky: Architecture and History (1995); idem, “Kentucky’s Jewish History in National Perspective: The Era of Mass Migration,” in: The Filson Club Quarterly, 69 (July 1995), 255–74; idem, “Stability and Mobility in the Small Jewish Community: Examples from Kentucky History,” in: American Jewish History, 79 (Spring 1990), 358–60; L.N. Dembitz, “Jewish Beginnings in Kentucky” in Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, 1 (1898), 99–100. [Lee Shai Weissbach (2nd ed.)]

KENYA. Jewish settlement in East Africa started at the turn of the 20t century, when the first Jewish families settled in Nairobi, then a labor camp and minor administrative center of the Uganda Railways. The area proposed to Herzl for Jewish settlement by the British colonial secretary Joseph Chamberlain in 1903 (the “*Uganda Scheme”) is in present-day Kenya. By 1913 there were 20 Jewish families in Nairobi and the first synagogue was built. World War II brought in its wake an influx of Jewish immigrants from Europe, many of them former inmates of Nazi camps. By 1945 the Jewish community in Kenya numbered about 150 families, the majority settling in Nairobi. Most Jews engaged in commerce or the free professions, and some were absorbed in the colonial administration. A landmark in the community’s history was the arrival from Palestine in March 1947 of a trainload of detainees, members of the *Irgun Ẓ eva’i Le’ummi and *Loḥ amei Ḥ erut Israel, who were placed in a detention camp in Gilgil. The Jewish community greatly assisted in improving their conditions. The new synagogue of the community, consecrated in 1955, is located in downtown Nairobi. By 1957 the community had reached a peak membership of 165 families. The president of the Board of Kenya Jewry, Israel Somen, was elected Nairobi’s mayor. From 1957 the community decreased steadily and in 1968 totaled 113 families. The Nairobi congregation maintained a fulltime rabbi who was also responsible for Jewish education. In 1968 the community maintained a Hebrew Aid Society and the ḥ evra kaddisha (“burial society”). It had a Zionist organization from 1909, and a WIZO branch from 1944. In the early 21st century the community numbered around 400, with a Chabad rabbi officiating at the Nairobi synagogue. [Ze’ev Levin]

Relations with Israel From its independence, at the end of 1963, the government of Kenya and its leader Jomo Kenyatta displayed a friendly attitude toward Israel. Full diplomatic relations were established between the two countries. Israel maintains an embassy in Nairobi, while Kenya’s diplomatic mission in Israel is handled by a nonresident ambassador. In 1966 the two countries signed an agreement for technical and scientific cooperation. Israel extended aid in the establishment, direction, and teaching of the Machakos School for Social Workers up to the stage at which the Kenyan government could take it over. Kenyan trainees participated in courses in Israel on agriculture,

80

labor and cooperation, community development, and training of military officers and air cadets. In 1969 Israel exported $2,947,000 to Kenya and imported $793,000 worth of goods. Israel corporations expended $14,800,000 on highways, watersupply projects, housing, and office buildings through 1969. They also invested in small-scale industry, and El Al was a partner in the Hilton Hotel in Nairobi. Kenya has acted as a moderating factor in Israel issues within African forums. Though Kenya broke off relations with Israel after the Yom Kippur War of 1973, trainees continued arriving, and during the Entebbe rescue operation in 1976, the Kenyan government allowed Israeli planes to refuel in its territory. Relations were resumed in 1988. In 2002 terrorists bombed the Israeliowned Paradise Hotel in Kikambala, killing 15, and then fired rockets at an El-Al plane taking off from Mombassa International Airport. The hotel was reopened in 2004 after a joint Kenyan-Israeli cleanup effort [Yoav Biran]

Bibliography: J. Carlebach, The Jews of Nairobi 1903–1962 (1962), incl. bibl. See also bibliography on *Uganda Scheme.

°KENYON, DAME KATHLEEN MARY (1906–1978), British archaeologist; daughter of biblical scholar and director of the British Museum, Sir Frederic Kenyon. Early in her career she took part in excavations at Zimbabwe (1929), St Albans/ Verulamium (1930–35), and Samaria (1931–34). From 1935 to 1951 she directed excavations at various Roman sites in England and at Sabratha, Tripolitania (1948–49, 1951). At the University of London Institute of Archaeology Kathleen Kenyon served as secretary (1935–48), acting director (1942–46), and lecturer in Palestinian archaeology (1948–62). While acting as director of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem (1951–66), she conducted excavations at Jericho (1952–58) and Jerusalem (1961–67). W.G. Dever summed up her character as follows: “her gruff manner often obscured her gentler personal qualities, and she showed obvious impatience with excavators who did not possess an immediate and intuitive grasp of stratigraphical complexities, in which she reveled and excelled.” From 1962 she was principal of St. Hugh’s College, Oxford. Her publications include Beginning in Archaeology (2nd rev. ed. 1953); Digging up Jericho (1957); Samaria-Sebaste, 3 vols. (with J.W. and G.M. Crowfoot; 1942–57); Excavations at Jericho, 1 (1960); Archaeology in the Holy Land (19652); Jerusalem. Excavating 3000 Years of History (1967); and Digging up Jerusalem (1974). Her major excavations remained largely unpublished until after her death, with the work being undertaken by T. Holland, A.D. Tushingham, H. Franken, M. Steiner, K. Prag, and others. Add. Bibliography: P.R.S. Moorey, “Kathleen Kenyon and Palestinian Archaeology,” in: PEQ, 111 (1979), 3–10; P.R.S. Moorey and P.J. Parr (eds.), Archaeology in the Levant: Essays for Kathleen Kenyon (1985); G.I. Davies, “British Archaeologists,” in: Benchmarks in Time and Culture: An Introduction to Palestinian Archaeology (1988), 37–62; S. Gibson, “British Archaeological Institutions in Mandatory Palestine, 1917–1948,” in: PEQ, 131 (1999), 115–43, esp. note 25; W.G. Dever, “Kathleen Kenyon (1906–1978),” in G.M. Cohen and M.S.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kerem Ḥ emed

Joukowsky (eds.), Breaking Ground: Pioneering Women Archaeologists (2004), 525–53. [Michael Avi-Yonah / Shimon Gibson (2nd ed.)]

KERAK or CHARAX, the place to which the Jews under Judah Maccabee in his expedition to Gilead advanced after their victory at Caspin (II Macc. 12ff. as Charax). It was located 750 stadia (c. 100 mi.) from Caspin and while inhabited by the Jews was known as Tubieni (II Macc. 12:17). A land called Tob appears in the list of cities conquered by Thutmosis III and in the Bible in connection with Jephthah (Judg. 11:3, 5) and as allies of the Ammonites (II Sam. 10:6, 8). It is identified with the region around al-Ṭ ayyiba, between Bostra and Edrain in the Bashan in northern Transjordan. In the vicinity is the village of al-Karak, a name which corresponds to the Greek name Charax (meaning “fortification”). The distance from Kerak to Caspin is only half the distance mentioned in II Maccabees, but the text does not necessarily refer to a straight line. Bibliography: F.M. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabées (1948), index, S.V. Charax. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

eral synagogues in Kerch, including one built in the 1830s, another in 1875, a separate Krimchak synagogue, and a Karaite one. In 1859 the talmud torah had 160 pupils, and there were schools for boys and girls, and a number of charitable institutions. On July 31, 1905, several Kerch Jews were killed in a pogrom; the Jews there organized *self-defense. There were 3,067 Jews in Kerch (8.9 of the city’s population) in 1926, and their numbers had risen by 1939 to 5,573 (total population 104,443), including about 500 Krimchaks. A few Jewish schools were probably opened in the 1920s. The Germans occupied Kerch on November 16, 1941. On December 1–3 they killed about 2,500 Jews, and the rest of them were murdered by the end of the month. On December 30, 1941, the town was taken by the Soviet army, but by May 23, 1942, it was retaken by the Germans, who killed the few remaining Jews, mostly Krimchaks. Together some 7,000 Jews from Kerch and surroundings were murdered. The city was liberated on April 11, 1944. In 1970 the Jewish population of Kerch was estimated at about 5,000, but there was no organized religious life. Most left in the mass emigration of the 1990s. Bibliography: A. Tcherikower, Ha-Yehudim ve-ha-Yevanim ba-Tekufah ha-Hellenistit (1963), 271, 281; B. Dinur, Yisrael ba-Golah, 1 (1962), index; D.M. Dunlop, History of the Jewish Khazars (1967), index; I. Ben-Zvi, The Exiled and the Redeemed (1967), 109–111; S.M. Schwarz, The Jews in the Soviet Union (1951), index; M. Osherovich, Shtet un Shtetlekh in Ukraine, 1 (1948), 241–51.

KERCH (in antiquity, Panticapaeum), port at the eastern extremity of Crimea, Ukraine. A Jewish settlement appears to have existed on this spot during the period of the independent kingdom of Bosphorus (fifth century B.C.E.) but the earliest extant evidence dates from the time that the town was under the dominion of the Roman Empire. A Greek inscription of 81 C.E. concerning the liberation of a Jewish slave reveals that a Jewish community existed in the town at that period and that there was also a synagogue. Non-Jewish inscriptions belonging to the first centuries of the Christian era bear numerous Jewish symbols. During the second half of the ninth century the patriarch Photius wrote to Archbishop Antony of Kerch thanking him for his efforts to convert the Jews of the city. In his letter to *Ḥ isdai ibn Shaprut the *Khazar king Joseph mentions Kark (Kerch) among the cities of his kingdom, and it may be assumed that the Jewish community flourished there during the eighth and ninth centuries under the Khazar kings, who became converts to Judaism. As a result of the wars between the Khazars and the Russians during the second half of the tenth century and the wars between the Russians and the Greeks at the close of the 11t century, the Jews abandoned Kerch, so that when *Pethahiah of Regensburg visited the city in 1175 he found a community of *Karaites only. During the 17t century the Turks built a fortress in the city and a site was granted to the Karaites for a cemetery. After the city had been captured by the Russians in 1771, a new community of local and Russian Jews was established but it was destroyed during the Crimean War (1854–56). After a number of years, the Jewish settlement was reconstituted, and in 1897 numbered 4,774 persons (14 of the city’s population), including *Krimchaks and Karaites. Most of them earned their livelihood in the dried fish and salt industries and in the oil refineries, but also in petty trade and crafts. There were sev-

KEREM Ḥ EMED (Heb. ‫“ ; ֶּכ ֶרם ֶח ֶמד‬vineyard of delight”), Hebrew annual of the Galician *Haskalah. Published in Vienna, Prague, and Berlin from 1833 to 1856, Kerem Ḥ emed served as a central forum for Eastern and Western Jewish scholars and authors. The publisher and nominal editor, Samuel Leib *Goldenberg, was a prominent Galician maskil who founded it to take the place of *Bikkurei ha-Ittim, which ceased publication in 1831. Kerem Ḥ emed differed from its predecessor in that it did not print belles lettres and was concerned mainly with scholarly research in Judaism and Jewish literature. In accordance with a literary convention in 18t-century Italy and Germany, the studies were published in the form of letters exchanged by scholars in Eastern Europe (mainly Galicia) and those in the West (first Italy and then other countries). In addition to the talmudic and medieval literary studies, editions of ancient manuscripts and treatises were published with notes and prefaces. The annual reflected Jewish preoccupations during the first half of the 19t century, namely the various facets of the Haskalah: humanistic and scientific studies, revival of the Hebrew language, and opposition to Ḥ asidism and to mystical movements generally. Kerem Ḥ emed also published Samuel David *Luzzatto’s criticism of medieval Jewish rationalism (Maimonides, Abraham ibn Ezra) and his commendation of Rashi’s conservative and traditional approach. Kerem Ḥ emed published the first works of the philosopher Nachman *Krochmal (mostly unsigned or under a pseudonym), the anti-ḥ asidic essays of Josef *Perl and Isaac

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

81

[Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]

keren hayesod

*Erter, and the controversy between Tobias *Feder and Jakob Samuel *Bick regarding the use of Yiddish, the first such controversy to be carried on in Hebrew. The acting editor of the third and subsequent volumes was Solomon Judah *Rapoport, who, in addition to his studies and commentaries, annotated the works of others. The number of contributors grew from year to year and included writers from Russia, Germany, Hungary and in the last annuals, such figures as L. Zunz, A. Geiger, and the astronomers H.Z. Slonimsky and H.M. Pineles. After Goldenberg’s death publication of the annuals ceased until it was revived by Senior Sachs who published the last two annuals in a style similar to their predecessors. Altogether nine volumes appeared, seven edited by Goldenberg and Rapoport, and two by Sachs. An index to all the volumes appears in the first part of Die hebraische Publizistik in Wien (1930), compiled by B. Wachstein whose preface to the index includes an extensive monograph on Kerem Ḥ emed.

KEREN HAYESOD (Palestine Foundation Fund), the financial arm of the *World Zionist Organization, founded at the Zionist conference held in London in July 1920. Two basic views were expressed on the problem of how the World Zionist Organization should finance its work in Palestine after the important political gains made at the end of World War I. One group favored the establishment of a company run on banking lines to promote undertakings solely on a business basis. The other emphasized the need to preserve the pioneering character of the Zionist effort by mobilizing national capital through donations from the Jewish masses. There was also a proposal, which won little support, to float a national loan. The conference adopted a compromise combining the first and second proposals. The Keren Hayesod was to appeal to Zionists and non-Zionists alike for funds to finance on a nonprofit basis immigration and colonization in Palestine in order to lay the foundations of the Jewish National Home, as well as to encourage business enterprise in close cooperation with private capital. Contributions were to constitute an annual voluntary tax, with a certain minimum level. Keren Hayesod was registered on March 23, 1921, as a British limited company. Its members (limited to no more than 50), together with the chairman of the board of directors, were chosen by the executive of the Zionist Organization. The head office was in London until 1926 when it was transferred to Jerusalem. When the enlarged *Jewish Agency for Palestine was founded in 1929, with equal representation for non-Zionists, Keren Hayesod continued to be the main instrument for financing the Zionist budget. From 1925, the fund operated in the United States as the United Palestine Appeal (which was a partnership of Keren Hayesod and the Jewish National Fund) which combined in 1939 with the American Jewish *Joint Distribution Committee and the National Refugee Service to form the *United Jewish Appeal. The UJA operates in the United States, while the Keren Hayesod head office in Jeru-

salem coordinates operations in other countries including the State of Israel, where it is a joint fund of the Keren Hayesod and JNF The Keren Hayesod has cooperated with the *Jewish National Fund, *Youth Aliyah, constructive funds associated with Zionist parties, and other officially Zionist-connected institutions. In 1956 it was incorporated in Israel under the Keren Hayesod Law adopted by the *Knesset. Keren Hayesod and the United Jewish Appeal in the United States are based mainly on the work of volunteers. In almost every country with a Jewish population there is a central committee to collect contributions. There is also a committee in each city with a large Jewish community, as well as divisions for business, trade, professional, and women’s groups. In Belgium and Switzerland there are central committees for each language section of the population. The chairman of Keren Hayesod is responsible for its operations in all countries except the United States. There are departments for Latin America, the English speaking countries, and Europe, as well as for special projects in Israel, wills and legacies, information, reception of guests, administration and finance. The emergency campaign initiated just before the SixDay War, 1967, increased twelvefold Keren Hayesod’s normal annual income from countries other than the United States. This was achieved by an increase in both the size of individual contributions and the number of donors, which rose from 200,000 to 400,000. The income rose from $15m in 1966 to $150m in 1967. A second emergency campaign in 1968 raised $42,300,000 in cash and $13,200,000 in additional pledges.(See Table: Keren Hayesod.) Among the founders of Keren Hayesod were Chaim *Weizmann, Aharon Barth, and Isaac *Naidich. The first directors were Berthold *Feiwel (also managing director), George Halpern, Vladimir *Jabotinsky (also director of propaganda), Shelomoh *Kaplansky, Shemaryahu *Levin, Isaac Naidich, Israel M. *Sieff (later Lord Sieff) and Hillel Zlatapolsky. When the head office of Keren Hayesod was moved to Jerusalem in 1926 the managing directors were Arthur *Hantke and Leib *Jaffe (who was killed in March 1948 by a bomb explosion in the Jewish Agency courtyard), Kurt *Blumenfeld joined them in 1934. Since the establishment of the State of Israel, the following served as chairmen: Arthur Hantke, Zvi Hermann, Eliahu *Dobkin, Israel *Goldstein and Ezra *Shapiro. Administrative heads were Leo *Hermann, as secretary-general, who was succeeded by Yehudah *Yaari. M. Ussoskin, and Shimshon Y. Kreutner (from 1968) were directors-general. Treasurers included Abraham Ulitzer and Moshe Ussoskin. Funds collected through the Keren Hayesod United Israel Appeal (the second half of the name was adopted in 1948 to cover united operations of primary Zionist funds) have helped to establish and develop 820 villages and towns in Israel since 1921, and to help finance such important enterprises as the General Mortgage Bank, Israel Land Development Corporation, Mekorot Water Company, Rassco (Rural and Suburban Settlement Company), Solel Boneh (the Histadrut’s building and contracting company), the Palestine (Israel) Electric

82

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: Klausner, Sifrut, 2 (19522), 37f. [Getzel Kressel]

keren hayesod

Corporation, the Palestine Potash Works (Dead Sea Works), the Anglo-Palestine Bank (now Bank Leumi), Amidar Housing Corporation, Zim Navigation Company, El Al Airlines, and many others. [Israel Goldstein]

Later Developments In the early 1990s Keren Hayesod achieved unprecedented results from its fund-raising campaigns in 47 countries (and 90 cities) on five continents. With no increase in staff, and citing both the Exodus of Russian Jews to Israel and above all the Gulf War and Scud attacks on Israel, it was able to raise in 1990/91 some quarter of a billion dollars of which 201 million were transferred to the Jewish Agency, mainly for immigration and absorption purposes. The massive flow of Russian Jews to Israel, coupled with the dramatic rescue of Ethiopian Jews in Operation Solomon (May 1991), captured the imagination of the contributors and their leaders were able to capitalize on tens of thousands of volunteers, recruited and trained over the years by Keren Hayesod staff from Jerusalem, and its many emissaries overseas. But the great euphoria of 1990–1991 soon waned and the

campaign results showed a drop in income. The reasons for this were not hard to discern. From 1993, and mainly after the signing of the Oslo Agreement between Israel and the PLO, and the Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, the impression was created that Israel was now launched on the road to peace, and there was less need for Jewish contributions. As Israel’s economy showed signs of healthy growth, and highly positive and praising articles appeared in the world’s media, more contributors wondered if the time had not come to deal with the plight of their own communities. As the process of assimilation and intermarriage continued unabated, stronger voices were heard in the Diaspora communities calling for the need to retain more funds at home for local needs, mainly in the area of education and welfare, rather than to send them to Israel, some of whose leaders were openly saying there was no longer need for them. A debate erupted in Israel in 1993 between Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin, who called on Jews to strengthen their communities and Prime Minister Rabin who rejected this approach calling on Jews to continue to help Israel deal with the massive immigration. The drama of the immigration also waned, when the

Keren Hayesod United Israel Appeal, 1920–1970 1920–1948

1948–1970

Immigration and Absorption

487,000 immigrants, including 28,700 children brought to Palestine by Youth Aliyah, settled and absorbed in the country.

1,400,000 immigrants, including 95,800 children brought to Israel by Youth Aliyah. (Many of the children came with parents and Youth Aliyah accepted them as its wards.)

Agricultural Settlement. Development Towns and Housing

257 agricultural settlements were established with a population of 90,000 working some 700,000 dunams (175,000 acres) of land.

525 new agricultural settlements and 27 development towns built; 175,000 new housing units provided permanent homes for nearly 1,400,000 new immigrants

Total Funds Raised

$ 143,000,000 – 70% from the United States through United Jewish – Appeal. – 30% from other countries through Keren Hayesod.

$ 1,990,000,000 – 65% from the United States through United Jewish – Appeal – 35% from 71 other countries through Keren – Hayesod.

Immigration and Absorption Health Services Education Youth Aliyah Immigrant Housing Agricultural Settlement Educational Activities Overseas Operations Various Activities

$573,900,0001 $77,100,0001 $74,600,0001 $156,200,0001 $432,500,0001 $945,800,0001 $294,200,0001 $160,500,0001 $301,000,0001

Total expenditures of the Jewish Agency 1948–1970

Grand Total Funds Raised

Total

$3,015,800,0001

1920–1948 1948–1970 Total

$143,000,0001 $1,990,000,0001 $2,133,000,0001

1. The balance of the expenditures not covered by the income of Keren Hayesod United Israel Appeal and the United Jewish Appeal came from additional sources, such as German reparations and heirless property, collections on account of the repayment of loans from Jewish Agency-Keren Hayesod funds; the realization of property; special Youth Aliyah campaigns; participation by the Government of Israel in agricultural settlement and long and medium term loans.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

83

keret, etgar

numbers settled into 65,000–75,000 a year. It was difficult to keep the momentum and the interest alive. By 1991 the funds Keren Hayesod transferred to Jerusalem were 185 million dollars. A year later it dropped to 150 and by 1995, 115 million dollars. Keren Heyesod began to focus attention on new sources of income, focusing mainly on wills and bequests, which yielded a growing income. One such bequest in Europe was worth over 100 million German marks. Efforts were also directed at retaining the coming generation and maintaining a high level of educational, motivational, and inspirational programs centering on visits to Israel and to Jewish communities in the former Soviet Union. In the countries where it operates, Keren Hayesod continues to be a major link between Israel and the Diaspora. By the turn of the century, in addition to helping create over 800 settlements in Israel, Keren Hayesod had helped to rehabilitate 90 disadvantaged neighborhoods and developments towns through *Project Renewal, to educate 300,000 youngsters in Youth Aliyah, and to bring 175,000 young people to Israel in “Israel Experience” programs. [Meron Medzini (2nd ed.)] Bibliography: Keren Hayesod, Memorandum and Articles of Association (1921), Constitution and Palestine Work (1922), Jewish Fund (1921), Keren Hayesod Book (1921), Reports to the Zionist Congresses (1921– ), Facts and Figures on Israel Population and Economy (1950), A Decade of Freedom (1958); I. Klinov, Will and Fulfilment: Keren Hayesod Twenty-Five Years Old (1946); A. Ulitzur, Foundations: A Survey of 25 Years of Activity of the Palestine Foundation Fund Keren Hayesod (1947); M.M. Berman, The Bridge to Life: A Saga of Keren Hayesod 1920–1970 (1971).

KERET, ETGAR (1967– ), Israeli author. Keret, often referred to as Israel’s hippest young artist, is one of the most popular writers among Israeli youth. Critic Nissim Calderon wrote that Keret is “the Amos Oz of his generation.” Keret’s books have all been bestsellers and each of them was awarded the Platinum Prize for selling more than 40,000 copies. Born in Tel Aviv, Keret published his first collection of 56 short stories, Ẓ inorot (“Pipelines”), in 1992, followed two years later by Ga’aguai le-Kissinger, which was enthusiastically received by critics and readers alike. The mini-narratives, often only two or three pages long, are compact stories, postmodernistic texts in the fashion of video-clips, depicting an episode, portraying a certain situation, opening thereby a window on a surreal world and on strange inner lives. As in the work of the American writer Raymond Carver, an important influence on many young writers in Israel, the unexpected often springs from what seems to be the common and everyday. In the spirit of postmodernism, there is no dichotomy between low and high, pop and classic culture, real and imaginary; comic moments coalesce with melancholy ones, sentimental episodes with serious reflections and the grotesque. Having been deserted by his girlfriend, Meir meets four dwarfs who try to help him overcome his sorrow; a young man has

84

to prove to his girlfriend that he really loves her by literally tearing his heart out; Israeli soldiers discover that the terrorists who attacked them were just a bunch of Hebrew-speaking rabbits. Nonsense conceals biting criticism. Indeed, the argument that Keret is one of the seminal voices of a “private generation” in Hebrew literature is misleading: Politics come in through the back door, as it were, between the lines, or, as in the case of “Cocked and Locked” (included in E. Ben Ezer’s English anthology Sleepwalkers, 1999) with a cynical twist. Like Orly *Castel-Bloom, Keret too plays with language, probes metaphors and clichés, underlines the inadequacy of words and at times creates his own vocabulary. In 1996 Keret published his first “Comics” (with Rutu Modan) entitled Lo Banu Lehenot, followed a year later by Simte’ot haZa’am (“Streets of Rage”; with illustrator Asaf Hanuka). HaKaytana shel Kneller (“Kneller’s Happy Campers”) appeared in 1998, containing a novella and stories. Ḥ ayyim, the antihero of the novella, commits suicide and lives on in a world remarkably similar to the real one, with one major difference: the ability to perform miracles. In the surreal world, he meets his beloved Desirée as well as the Messiah, and although the dream of happiness is soon shattered, he remains optimistic. Anihu, a collection of stories, followed in 2004, and the same year also saw the publication of Pizzeria Kamikaze, a comics version (with illustrations by Asaf Hanuka) of Keret’s bestselling novella Kneller’s Happy Campers. Keret’s creative output does not restrict itself to comics and prose, it includes newspaper columns, a book for children, films and comedy. Keret, whose movie Skin Deep won the Israeli Oscar as well as first prize at several international film festivals, lectures at Tel Aviv University Film School and was invited to Berlin in winter 2003 as Samuel Fischer Guest Professor. He received the Prime Minister’s Prize for literature and the Ministry of Culture Cinema Prize. His works have been translated into many languages. Available in English translation are Selected Stories (1998); How to Make a Good Script Great (1996); Jetlag (1998); Kneller’s Happy Campers (2001); Anihu (2004); as well as the collection Gaza Blues with Palestinian author Samir elYoussef (2004), and the children’s book Dad Runs Away with the Circus (2004). For further information about translations see the ITHL website at www.ithl.org.il. Bibliography: N. Govrin, “Ha-Shoah ba-Sifrut ha-Ivrit shel ha-Dor ha-Ẓ a’ir,” in: Ẓ afon, 3 (1995), 151–160; L. Chudnovski, “Ha-Im Kayyamim Ḥ orim Sheḥ orim,” in: Iton 77:222–223 (1998), 24–29; A. Mendelson-Maoz, “Situaẓ iyot Kiẓ oniyyot be-Yeẓ irotehem shel CastelBloom ve-Keret,” in: Dappim le-Meḥ kar be-Sifrut, 11 (1998), 269–295; I. Zivoni, “Ki mi-Komiks Bata ve-el Komiks Tashuv,” in: Iton 77:234–235 (1999), 24–26; M. Shilgi, Keri’at Etgar (2002); H. Navon, “Iyyun Teologi be-Sippur shel Etgar Keret,” in: Alon Shevut, 19 (2004), 79–92. [Anat Feinberg (2nd ed.)]

KERI’AH (Heb. ‫יעה‬ ָ ‫) ְק ִר‬, rending of the garments as a sign of grief. Keri’ah is a traditional Jewish mourning custom, based on Genesis 37:34 and Job 1:20. At the death of one of the seven relatives for whom mourning is decreed (father, mother, chil-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kerler, dov-ber

dren (at least 30 days old), brother (a half-brother), sister (a half-sister), husband, wife), a rent, at least four inches long, is made in the lapel of an outer garment prior to the funeral. For parents, the keri’ah is made in all clothes, save the undershirt. For parents, the keri’ah is made on the left side; for other relatives, on the right. A member of the *ḥ evra kaddisha usually makes the incision with a knife and the mourner tears it to the required length and pronounces the blessing: “Blessed be Thou, O Lord, the righteous Judge.” According to the Talmud (MK 25a) keri’ah should be done at the moment of death. Present practice is to defer keri’ah until just before the funeral service or prior to interment. It should be performed in a standing position. The keri’ah is exposed during the whole mourning period. It may, however, be roughly stitched together after the “seven-day mourning period” and completely sewn up after 30 days. When mourning for parents, it may be stitched only after 30 days and may never be sewn up. Women may stitch it together immediately. During ḥ ol ha-mo’ed (intermediate festival days) the keri’ah rite is delayed and is performed after the festival, except in many communities in the case of mourning for parents. The custom is also practiced on seeing a Torah Scroll destroyed by fire. In talmudic times, it was customary to express grief by keri’ah at the death of the *nasi (president of the Sanhedrin), or of a great scholar (MK 22b), or upon seeing Jerusalem and the temple mount in ruins. In the U.S. Conservative and Reform practice a torn black ribbon can be worn on the lapel for 30 days. Some Orthodox Jews follow this custom, others tear a tie, and some adhere to the tradition as above. Bibliography: Sh. Ar., YD 340; Maim. Yad, Evel, 8–90; Eisenstein, Dinim, 376; H. Rabinowicz, Guide to Life (1964), 34–37.

KERITOT (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ִריתוֹ ת‬, tractate of the order Kodashim in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Babylonian Talmud, which derives its name from the 36 sins for which the Torah gives the punishment of *karet. The Mishnah consists of six chapters dealing with the conditions that necessitate the bringing of the sin-offering (ḥ attat) or a guilt offering (asham, or asham talui) to be brought only in case of the inadvertent or doubtful commission of sins which if committed intentionally would entail karet. After enumerating these sins in its first Mishnah, the rest of the first chapter deals with the unusual “sin offering” required of women after childbirth (Lev. 12:6). The second chapter lays down the rules stating exactly who is obliged to bring the respective offerings, and specifies if one or more offerings must be brought when there has been manifold transgression. The third chapter gives the rules applicable to the inadvertent commission of a sin requiring a sin offering. The fourth chapter deals in detail with cases of doubtful commission of a sin requiring a guilt offering. The fifth chapter first defines and classifies the types of forbidden blood which if consumed require a sin offering, and then discusses the doubtful commission of sacrilege. The sixth chapter deals with the question of what is to happen to the animal designated as a

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

sacrifice if, before or after it has been slaughtered, it becomes clear that no sin was committed. The tractate ends with a discussion as to who has priority of honor, father or mother, and concludes that the honor due to one’s teacher has priority over that to one’s father. The statement that Keritot is according to the opinion of R. Akiva (Ker. 3b: but see Sanh. 65a) does not apply to the entire tractate (Albeck, Mavo la-Mishnah (1959) 87), as various strata can be discerned there, but refers to the fact that it contains the rulings of R. Akiva, as recorded by his disciple Meir (Epstein, Tanna’im, 82). Thus Albeck claims that Mishnah 2:6 is a gloss to Mishnah 2:4 taken from other tannaitic sources and placed at the end of the chapter. Mishnah 6:2, 3 was taken from the mishnayot of Judah b. Ilai. The order of the paragraphs in the Tosefta does not correspond fully to that in the Mishnah. Chapter 3 contains a group of laws each of which begins with the word ḥ atikhah (“a piece”). An interesting passage debates the role of the asham talui (a sacrifice for uncertain sins) which some rabbis call asham ḥ asidim (“guilt offering of the pious”), holding that its purpose is to atone for every unknown sin. As an extreme example the Tosefta cites the case of Bava b. Buta who offered this sacrifice every day. Other rabbis, however, limit it to a certain category of grave sins. The Tosefta concludes with an aggadic saying to the effect that the patriarchs were equal to one another, as was Aaron to Moses and Joshua to Caleb. The language of Keritot in terminology, style, and grammar resembles that of *Nedarim,*Nazir, *Temurah, and *Me’ilah, their language representing a dialect different from the rest of the Talmud and close to the language of the Targum (J.N. Epstein, Dikduk Aramit Bavlit (1960), 14–16). Keritot did not pass through the stages of development of the other tractates since it was not (like the other above-mentioned tractates) taught in the academies of the geonim (see Halakhot Pesukot Mss. Adler no. 2639; A. Marmorstein, in: MGWJ, 67 (1923), 134f.). Despite this, it resembles other tractates in content, in names of its amoraim, and in its internal construction (see A. Weiss, Hithavvut ha-Talmud bi-Shelemuto (1943), 57f.). The Babylonian Gemara gives the ingredients of the incense in the Temple (6a; see Pittum ha-Ketoret). Among aggadic passages of interest in Keritot are a number which deal with education. The Mishnah and Talmud were translated into English in the Soncino edition by I. Porush (1948). Bibliography: Ḥ . Albeck, Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Kodashim (1959), 243–5. [Arnost Zvi Ehrman]

KERLER, DOVBER (1958– ), Yiddish scholar and poet. Kerler was born in Moscow (son of the Yiddish dissident poet Josef Kerler). Raised in an environment steeped in Yiddish culture that included summers spent among traditionally religious communities in the Carpathian Mountains of western Ukraine, he immigrated with his parents to Jerusalem in 1971. After completing his B.A. in Yiddish literature and IndoEuropean linguistics in Jerusalem (1983), he became Oxford

85

kerler, yoysef

University’s first doctoral candidate in Yiddish Studies in 1984, teaching there from 1984, as fellow at Lincoln College 1989–2000. His doctoral thesis on the origins of modern (East European-based) literary Yiddish (1988) moved the accepted dating back to the 18t century, forming the basis of his Origins of Modern Literary Yiddish (1999). He edited The History of Yiddish Studies (1991), The Politics of Yiddish (1998), and became editor-in-chief of Yerusholaymer Almanakh in 2003 (after serving as co-editor from 1993). Also an accomplished Yiddish poet, publishing under the pen name Boris Karloff, his books of verse include Vu mit an Alef (“Vu with an Aleph,” 1996), and a collection of his and his father’s works, Shpigl Ksav (“Mirror Writing,” 1996). Relocated to the U.S. in 2000 to take up the chair in Yiddish Studies at Indiana University, from 2002 he led the Yiddish Ethnographic Project (YEP) to film expeditions to elderly Yiddish speakers in the Ukraine and other parts of Eastern Europe. He created and edits a number of major Yiddish culture websites (http://www.geocities. com/berkale/index.html; http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/ kerlerdovber/myhomepage/business.html?mtbrand=ol_us; http://elabrek.blogspot.com). Kerler was awarded the Hofstein Prize for Yiddish literature (1997), the Modern Language Association’s Leviant Prize for Yiddish scholarship (2004), and a National Endowment for the Humanities grant for ethnographic expeditions to Eastern Europe (2005–6). Bibliography: E. Podriatchik, in: Yidishe Kultur, 6 (1990), 36–8; M. Hoffman, in: Forverts (June 15, 1990), 18; D. Wolpe, in: Forverts (Dec. 18 1998), 14; J. Baumgarten, in: Histoire épistémologie langage, 21:2 (1999), 172–4; D. Katz, in: Forverts (Oct. 1 and 15, 1999), 13:13; A. Brumberg, in: Jewish Quarterly (Winter 1999–2000), 82–5; A. Goldschläger, in: Literary Research (2000), 191–2; J. Fishman, in: Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 21 (2000), 353–4; J. Frakes, in: Journal of English and Germanic Philology 100 (2001), 303–5; M. Isaacs, in: Journal of Sociolinguistics 5 (2001), 97–100; L. Lubarski, Letste Nayes (Dec. 18, 2003). [Dovid Katz (2nd ed.)]

KERLER, YOYSEF (1918–2000), Yiddish poet and editor. Kerler was born in Haysin (Gaisin, Ukraine). When he was seven his family moved to a Jewish kolkhoz (Mayfeld, Crimea). He studied at a Yiddish technical school in Odessa (1934–37), began to study Yiddish literature, and debuted with a poem in the Odeser Arbeter (1935). He studied at the Yiddish Drama School of the Moscow State Yiddish Theater (GOSET, 1937–41). At the outbreak of World War II he enlisted in the Red Army and was wounded three times. His war poems constituted his first book, Far Mayn Erd (“Fighting for My Earth,” 1944). Further poems and articles appeared in Der Emes, Eynikayt, Heymland, Shtern (Kiev), and Folks-Shtime (Warsaw). In 1947 he moved to Birobidjan, worked for Birobidzhaner Shtern, and openly protested the official policy to stop teaching Yiddish in schools. After returning to Moscow, he was arrested (April 1950) and sentenced to 10 years for “antiSoviet nationalistic activity.” In the Vorkuta Gulag, he wrote and later smuggled out several poem cycles, some of which were included under the guise of “songs of the [Nazi] ghetto”

86

in his second book, appearing in authorized Russian translation only (Vinogradnik Moego Otsa / “My Father’s Vineyard,” 1957), and a few also in his third book Khochu byt’ dobrym (“I’d Love to be Good-Natured,” 1965). During the continued lack of Yiddish publishing in the early post-Stalinist period, he collaborated with many Yiddish performers as lyricist, author of short plays, and artistic consultant. Many of his poems were arranged and set to music, several of which became popular, some even acquiring the status of “folksongs” (“A Glezele Yash,” “Der Tam-Ganeydevdiker Nign,” “Am Yisroel Khay”). Many of his gulag and protest poems appeared in the Forverts (1969) and Di Goldene Keyt (1970). Together with his wife, Anya Kerler, he became one of the first longterm *refuseniks and open campaigners for free Jewish emigration. After a six-year struggle with the Soviet authorities, he was finally permitted to immigrate to Israel with his family, settling in Jerusalem (1971). Just before his arrival there he was awarded the honorary Itzik Manger Prize, followed in ensuing years by numerous other literary prizes in Israel and abroad. In addition to publications in periodicals throughout the world, six volumes of his poetry appeared in Israel: Dos Gezang Tsvishn Tseyn (“The Song through Clenched Teeth,” 1971; Heb. tr. Zemer ben ha-Shinayim, 2000); Zet Ir Dokh (“Despite All Odds,” 1972); Di Ershte Zibn Yor (“The First Seven Years,” 1986); Himlshaft (“Heaven Above,” 1986); Abi Gezunt (“For Health’s Sake,” 1993); Shpigl-Ksav (“Words in the Mirror,” 1996), and two prose collections: 12 Oygust 1952 (“12 August 1952,” 1977) and Geklibene Proze (“Selected Prose,” 1991). He was instrumental in organizing the Jerusalem branch of the Israeli Yiddish Writers and Journalists Association, campaigned to institute perennial public commemoration of the Yiddish writers, actors, and intellectuals murdered by the Stalinist regime in 1937 and 1952, edited a number of collections, and founded the acclaimed organ for Yiddish literature and culture, Yerusholaymer Almanakh (26 vols., 1973–98). His poems have been widely translated and anthologized. Bibliography: Y. Druker, in: Folks-Shtime (April 1961); D. Sadan, in: Heymishe Ksovim (1972), 157–85; Y. Mark, in: Jewish Book Annual, 30 (1973), 40–2; D. Sfard, Mit Zikh un mit Andere (1984), 447–55; M. Tsanin, in: Di Goldene Keyt, 132 (1991), 192–7; Y. Shargel, in: Yerusholaymer Almanakh, 27 (2003), 41–4; M. Wolf, in: Forverts (Jan. 6, 2004). [Dov-Ber Kerler (2nd ed.)]

KERMAN, city located in the province with the same name in the southeast of *Iran. A popular Kermani saying considers Kerman “the heart of the world,” a great exaggeration. The origin of Kerman itself goes back to the Sasanian period, but, as far as we know, the Jewish community there is relatively new. Oral tradition indicates that because of severe famine in Yazd/Yezd about 150 years ago, several Jews of that city immigrated southward and eventually settled in Kerman. Historically this may be true, because the Jews of Kerman are not mentioned in the two Jewish chronicles, that of *Bābāi ben Lutf (17t century) – except for a mention of “ignorant ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kern, jerome david

Yezdi-Kermani people” who extracted money from the Jews of Yezd – and that of *Bābāi ben Farhād (about 1730), nor are they referred to in other Jewish and non-Jewish travelogues from the first half of the 19t century. The Yezdi origin of the Jews of Kerman is attested by a linguistic investigation of their Jewish dialects. Neumark, who did not visit Kerman, said in 1884: “Not far from there (Yezd) there is the city of Kerman where a number of 30 Jews live”. One does not know of any important Jewish event, significant literary productions, or personalities concerning the Jewish community of Kerman. Like Yezd, Kerman too is a dwelling place of a substantial numbers of Zoroastrians. Several disastrous events befell the city of Kerman, culminating in 1794, when for the support given to the Zand monarch by the Kermanis, his foe, Muhammad Khan of Qajar, wreaked a terrible revenge on the Kermanis by allowing his men to pillage the town for three months, selling 20,000 of the inhabitants into slavery and blinding the same number of its men. With its population decimated and most of its buildings in ruins, it is hard to believe that Kerman attracted any Jews to settle there. Kerman did not regain its prosperity until after 1860 and most probably this is the time when Jews of Yezd found it appropriate to immigrate to Kerman and settle there. Neumark in the above-mentioned report confirms this assumption. At the beginning of the 20t century it was reported that 2,000 Jews were living in Kerman In course of time many immigrated to *Teheran and to Israel. Just before the Islamic Revolution 500 Jews were in Kerman. They had one elementary school and one synagogue. By the end of the 20t century fewer than 10 Jewish families remained in Kerman.

shah embraced the Christian or Bahai faith in the last half of the 19t and the first half of the 20t centuries. In March 1909 there was a terrible pogrom against the Jews which resulted in killing, wounding, and looting of their property. An important figure of Kermanshah was Shmuel Haim (1891?–1931), who became editor in chief of a Judeo-Persian weekly paper, Ha-Ḥ aim (established in June 1922) and was president of the Iranian Zionist Organization and the Jewish representative in the Majles (1923–26). In 1926 he was accused of having joined a group of officers to overthrow the Shah (Reza Shah). He was tried in a military court and put to death on December 15, 1931, although the charge against him was never proved. In 1948 the Jews of Kermanshah numbered 2,864 persons, including a few Jewish families from Iraq, living among 80,000 Muslims They had five synagogues, one bath-house, and one school (Alliance) that had opened in 1904 and went up to ninth grade. According to a report, at the end of the 20t century about 20 Jewish families lived in Kermanshah.

Bibliography: BAIU (Bulletin de l’Alliance Israélite Universelle), Paris; G. Lazard, “Le dialecte des Juifs de Kerman,” in: Les Hommages et opera minora, 7 (1981), 333–46; H. Levy, History of the Jews of Iran, 3 (1960); L. Lockhart, Famous Cities of Iran (1939); E. Neumark, “Massa’ be-Ereẓ ha-Kedem,” ed. A. Ya’ari (1947); E. Yarshater, “The Jewish Communities of Persia and Their Dialects,” in: Ph. Ginoux and A. Tafazzoli (eds.), Mémorial Jean de Menasce (1974), 453–66.

KERN, JEROME DAVID (1885–1945), U.S. composer of popular music. Born in New York, Kern published his first song, “At the Casino,” in 1902. In 1903, while working in London, he had his first real success – a political song “Mr. Chamberlain” with lyrics by P.G. Wodehouse, who later contributed lyrics to many of Kern’s musicals. Returning to the U.S., he wrote songs that were used in musical productions, particularly in operettas coming from Europe, such as La Belle Paree (1911) and The Red Petticoat (1912), which was followed by Oh I Say (1913). From then on, his musicals appeared regularly on Broadway, the most important being Very Good, Eddie (1915), Oh Boy! (1917), Oh Lady, Lady (1918), Sally (1920), and Sunny (1925). His greatest success was Show Boat (1927) with libretto and lyrics by Oscar *Hammerstein. It was followed by Sweet Adeline (1929), The Cat and the Fiddle (1931), and Roberta (1933). In later years, Kern lived in Beverly Hills, California, and wrote scores for a great number of films, many of them adaptations of his most successful musicals. In all he wrote more than 1,000 songs, for 104 stage shows and films, and many of them proved to have a lasting popularity (e.g., “Ol’ Man River,” “Smoke Gets in Your Eyes”). In 1946 his life story was filmed under the title Till the Clouds Roll By.

[Amnon Netzer (2nd ed.)]

KERMANSHAH (called Qirmisin by Arab geographers), city located in the west of *Iran close to the border of *Iraq, on a commercial route between the two countries. The earliest mention of the city as a dwelling place of the Jews occurs in *Nathan ha-Bavli’s report from the 10t century. Surprisingly, the Jewish community of Kermanshah is not mentioned in the chronicle of *Bābāi ben Lutf though it is almost certain that Jews lived in the city during the Safavid period (1501–1736). Rabbi *David de-Beth Hillel (around 1827) reports that there were 300 Jewish families living among 80,000 Muslim inhabitants. Most of the Jews were poor. *Benjamin II (about 1850) counted 40 Jewish families in Kermanshah. Rabbi Castleman reported in 1860 that there were few Jews in Kermanshah, and that “they are not God fearing people.” According to Neumark, in 1884 there were 250 Jewish families. He says, “Muslims hate the Jews.” Several Jewish families in KermanENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: Bulletin de l’Alliance Israélite Universelle, Paris; J.J. Benjamin II, Eight Years in Asia and Africa from 1846 to 1855 (1863); A. Ben-Jacob, Yehudei Bavel (1965), index; Y.F. Castleman, Massa’ot Shali’aḥ Ẓ efat be-Arẓ ot ha-Mizraḥ (1942); A. Cohen, Ha-Kehillah ha-Yehudit be-Kermanshah (1992); David d’Beth Hillel, Unknown Jews in Unknown Lands (1824–1832), ed. by W.J. Fischel (1973); H. Levy, History of the Jews of Iran, 3 (1960); A. Netzer, “Yahudiyānei Iran dar avāset-e qarn-e bistom,” in: Shofar, a Jewish monthly in Persian published in Long Island; E. Neumark, Massa beEreẓ ha-Kedem, ed. by A. Ya’ari (1947). [Amnon Netzer (2nd ed.)]

Bibliography: D. Ewen, World of Jerome Kern (1960), incl. bibl.; K. List, in: Commentary, 3 (1947), 433–41; G. Saleski, Famous Musicians of Jewish Origin (1949), 85–86.

87

kerovah

KEROVAH (Heb. ‫)קרובא‬, name for various types of *piyyutim in the *Amidah prayer. The reader who chanted the prayer was called karova (Aram. ‫ ;קרובא‬in Hebrew it would be karov ‫)קרוב‬. The kerovah intended for the Amidah in which *Kedushah was recited, i.e., for the Shaḥ arit Amidah, according to the early usage of Ereẓ Israel, was designated kedushta while that for the *Musaf Amidah, where it was not customary to recite a Kedushah, was called shivata or shivah. The subject matter of the kedushta is fixed, being pertinent to the day on which it is recited, i.e., the weekly portion of the Torah, the haftarah, or the theme of a festival. But the shivata allowed for varied topics open to the choice and discretion of the paytan. The kedushta contains piyyutim for the first three blessings of the Amidah, those for the third blessing being numerous. The shivata contains seven equal sections corresponding to the number of blessings in the Amidah, except on festivals when the fourth blessing containing “the sanctity of the day” is made longer. The following are the sections of the early kedushta: (1) Magen, generally speaking a piyyut with an acrostic from alef to lamed, ending with an allusion to the first blessing of the Amidah, Magen Avraham (Shield of Abraham); (2) Meḥ ayyeh, a continuation of the previous acrostic with the conclusion alluding to the second blessing, Meḥ ayyeh ha-metim (“Who revives the dead”); (3) a piyyut with an acrostic of the author’s name; (4) a piyyut without an acrostic that ends with the word kadosh (holy); (5) a piyyut whose acrostic is from alef to yod, which in early manuscripts was called asiriyyah (group of ten); (6) an alphabetical acrostic based on the theme or subject of the day, its parts being connected with one another by the pertinent scriptural verses; (7) various piyyutim of an unfixed nature; (8) silluk, a long piyyut without an acrostic, containing a description of the importance of the subject matter of the day according to the midrashim. Just as it concluded the arrangement of the day’s piyyutim, so it also served as a kind of preliminary to the Kedushah; (9) Kedushah, which is a hymn to God. Among the sections of the kerovah were intertwined, as has been mentioned, scriptural verses appropriate to the topic; but beginning in the 16t century the verses no longer appeared in the prayer books. The kerovot for the Amidah of 18 blessings are similar in structure to the shivata, but their piyyutim are in general shorter and they are interwoven in all the blessings. Many of the kerovot also have reshut (prelude) which leads into the kerovah itself. In the course of time, slight changes were introduced into the early kerovah, but its essence was preserved. The kerovot for Rosh Ha-Shanah and the Day of Atonement received various additions, such as the teki’ot and the *Avodah. In the kerovot, there is no scope for individuality of composition, although there are kerovot for bridegrooms, for the death of important men, and for various events. The earliest known author of piyyutim to write kerovot was *Yannai, followed by Eleazar *Kallir, *Joshua, and *Phinehas b. Jacob ha-Kohen (Kafra). These paytanim, who lived and worked in Ereẓ Israel, influenced the writers of Babylon, Spain, Italy, France, and Germany.

Bibliography: Elbogen, Gottesdienst, 212ff., 309; M. Zulay, Piyyutei Yannai; (1938), 13–16; A.D. Goldschmidt, Mavo le-Maḥ zor Rosh Ha-Shanah (1970), 32–42. [Abraham Meir Habermann]

88

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

KERR, ALFRED (pen name of Alfred Kempner; 1867–1948), German literary and theater critic and author. Kerr was born in Breslau and studied there and in Berlin. He became drama critic for the Berlin newspaper Der Tag and later for the Berliner Tageblatt. Together with Paul Cassirer and Wilhelm Herzog, Kerr founded the theater magazine Pan, which was published from 1900 until World War I. Because of his public warning against national socialism, he immediately had to leave Germany in February 1933. Together with his second wife and his two children he fled to Prague, and subsequently to Switzerland, Paris, and London, where the family settled and lived in poverty. He worked for various newspapers and the BBC and became correspondent of the Munich newspaper Neue Zeitung in 1945. During his first visit to Germany after World War II he became severely ill and put an end to his life soon afterwards. Perhaps the leading impressionistic critic in modern German literature, Kerr considered criticism an art, and based his judgments on personal impressions. He believed that criticism should aim to “illuminate” a literary work, its author, and the author’s attitude to life. He wished to be considered an interpreter rather than a literary “lawgiver.” He was especially prominent as a champion of Hauptmann and Ibsen. Kerr’s Gesammelte Schriften fill seven volumes. The first five, Die Welt im Drama, appeared in 1917; the last two were published as Die Welt im Licht in 1920. A new edition in eight volumes was published from 1989 to 2001, Werke in Einzelbänden, as well as a collection of early letters, Wo liegt Berlin? Briefe aus der Reichshauptstadt 1895–1900 (1998). His travels included a journey to Palestine in 1903, which he recorded with poetic enthusiasm in “Jeruschalajim,” one of the chapters in Die Welt im Licht. Kerr devoted one of his studies to the ill-fated German-Jewish statesman Walter *Rathenau (1935). Some of Kerr’s poems were set to music by Richard Strauss and a posthumous volume of his verse appeared in 1955. Though inclining to mannerism in his later years, Kerr had an incomparable literary style. His choice of language shows the influence of Heine and Nietzsche. Bibliography: J. Chapiro, Fuer Alfred Kerr… (1928); Luft, in: A. Kerr, Die Welt im Licht (1961), 435–42. Add. Bibliography: H. Schneider: Alfred Kerr als Theaterkritiker (2 vol., 1984); D. VietorEngländer, in: B. Wolfgang Benz and M. Neiss (eds.), Deutsch-juedisches Exil; das Ende der Assimilation? Identitätsprobleme deutscher Juden in der Emigration, (1994), 67–77. L. Schoene, Neuigkeiten vom Mittelpunkt der Welt. Der Kampf ums Theater in der Weimarer Republik (1995). [Rudolf Kayser / Mirjam Triendl (2nd ed.)]

KERSH, GERALD (1911–1968), English author and journalist of the “tough” school. Kersh was born in Teddington, near London, and began to write stories as a child. He was a war correspondent for the Sunday newspaper The People, and an

keshet, yeshurun

MGM screenwriter. His works, notable for their fantasy and bohemianism, include the controversial Jews Without Jehovah (1934); They Die with Their Boots Clean (1941); The Thousand Deaths of Mr. Small (1950), a novel of Anglo-Jewish Life; and The Best of Gerald Kersh (1960). His novels about Soho’s lowlife, like Harry Fabian: Night and the City (1938) still have a cult following. In his last years he lived in upstate New York. KERTESZ, ANDRE (1894–1985), photographer. One of the most influential photographers of the 20t century, Kertesz was born in Budapest, Hungary. He attended the Academy of Commerce there but had little interest in business. He served in World War I and was wounded. At 18 he bought his first camera, one that made 4.5 × 6-centimeter glass negatives. This early work, prints not much bigger than a postage stamp, included cityscapes, landscapes, portraits, and outdoor studies of the artist’s brother capering about nude. In 1925 Kertesz moved to Paris, changed his given name from Andor to Andre, and met and photographed some of the most glamorous personalities of the time, including Chagall, Colette, Sergei Eisenstein, and Mondrian. One black and white photograph, which became his most famous, shows the austerely luminous image of the door and vestibule of Mondrian’s studio, but the work, Chez Mondrian, became better known for its subject than for its creator. Kertesz’s work, praised by critics, appeared in the most fashionable magazines of the day. Many of his pictures capture the incongruities of time and space. In Meudon, from 1928, the view down a narrow street opens up to a high aqueduct, across which charges a locomotive belching smoke. In the foreground, a man in a dark suit with eyes shadowed by his low hat brim approaches, carrying a large flat package. Buoyed by his success in Paris, Kertesz took a job as a fashion photographer in New York and he and his wife sailed to America in 1936. The new job did not work out and his efforts were not warmly embraced. He made a living making pictures of celebrity homes for House & Garden magazine but others, including his fellow Hungarian Brassai and Henri Cartier-Bresson, became famous. Kertesz felt that those photographers had appropriated his innovations. But in his late sixties, Kertesz, a pioneer in the use of small, 35-mm. cameras, began to receive recognition. He was included in exhibitions at the Museum of Modern Art and a new generation of photographers began rediscovering him, and he continued photographing into his nineties.

explores the dubious blessing of survival and the price paid for that survival. In 2003 he published Felszámolás (Liquidation, 2004), a novel about a Holocaust survivor with echoes of Kafka and Beckett. His collected lectures and essays include A holocaust mint kultúra (“The Holocaust as Culture,” 1993). In 2002, Kertész was awarded the Nobel Prize for literature “for writing that upholds the fragile experience of the individual against the barbaric arbitrariness of history.” The citation read: “In his writing Imre Kertész explores the possibility of continuing to live and think as an individual in an era in which the subjection of human beings to social forces has become increasingly complete…. For him Auschwitz is not an exceptional occurrence that like an alien body subsists outside the normal history of Western Europe. It is the ultimate truth about human degradation in modern existence.” KERTESZ, ISTVAN (1929–1973), conductor. Born in Budapest, Kertesz studied the violin at the Liszt Academy, whose student orchestra he later conducted, and in Rome. After becoming a conductor at Györ (1953–55), he was appointed junior conductor at the Budapest Opera, but left Hungary during the 1956 uprising. From 1958 he was music director at the Augsburg Opera and from 1964 until his death, at the Cologne Opera. From 1965 to 1968 he was principal conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra, with which he made many recordings. A leading conductor of the younger generation, he was admired for his conducting of the works of Schubert, Dvorák, Bruckner, Bartok, and – his greatest love – Mozart. Kertesz made frequent guest appearances at leading opera houses and with important orchestras, notably the Vienna Philharmonic and the Israel Philharmonic with which he was engaged at the time of his death. He died by drowning, while swimming off the coast of Herzliyyah. [Max Loppert (2nd ed.)]

KERTÉSZ, IMRE (1929– ), Hungarian novelist and translator. Kertész was born in Budapest and deported to Auschwitz in 1944, and from there to Buchenwald, where he was liberated in 1945. In postwar Budapest he worked as a journalist and translator, publishing his first novel in 1975. Sorstalanság (Fateless, 1992), deals with his experience as a teenager in Auschwitz, as does his Kaddis a meg nem született gyermekért (1990; Kaddish for a Child not Born, 1997), which shares much of Primo Levi’s pessimism regarding the human condition and

KESHET, YESHURUN (Koplewitz, Jacob; 1893–1977), Hebrew poet, literary critic, and translator. Born in Minsk Mazowiecki, near Warsaw, he first went to Palestine in 1911. He left in 1920 to study in Europe, and also taught in Marijampole, Lithuania. In 1926 he returned to Palestine, and after a short period of teaching devoted himself to writing and translation work. His first poems were published in Ha-Aḥ dut and Revivim (1913), and he then contributed poetry, essays, and literary criticism to most Hebrew newspapers and periodicals. His volumes of poetry include Ha-Helekh ba-Areẓ (1932), Elegyot (1944), and Ha-Ḥ ayyim ha-Genuzim (1959). Keshet’s poems are deeply influenced by European, particularly French, decadent poetry. Their lyricism converts what might have been the poet’s despair and Angst into an elegiac melancholy. His tendency to use more traditional forms also mitigates their harshness. Many of his poems reflect preoccupation with aesthetic and philosophical problems. His monograph on *Berdyczewski (1958) is a significant contribution to Hebrew literary criticism. His prose works include Ha-Derekh haNe’elamah (1941); diary (1919–39); Be-Doro shel Bialik (1943);

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

89

[Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

kessar, israel

Be-Dor Oleh (1950); Maskiyyot (1953), literary criticism; Shirat ha-Mikra (1945); Ruḥ ot ha-Ma’arav (1960), on European writers; Havdalot (1962); Keren Ḥ azut (1966), essays in national self-criticism; Maḥ arozot (1967); Bein ha-Armon ve-ha-Lilakh (1967), an autobiography; and Rashuyyot (1968), essays of evaluation on Israel writers. He also translated numerous books into Hebrew, many of which were classics of European literature. His collected poems, entitled Ha-Oẓ ar ha-Avud, were published in 1996. A list of his books and translations appears in his Keren Ḥ azut (1966), 381f. Bibliography: A. Cohen, Soferim Ivriyyim Benei Zemannenu (1964), 179–85; M. Mevorakh, Anshei Ru’aḥ be-Yisrael: Deyokena’ot Soferim (1956), 183–5; Kressel, Leksikon, 2 (1967), 805f. Add. Bibliography: S. Kremer, “Deyukano ha-Aẓ mi shel Sofer,” in: Moznayim, 38 (1974), 138–46; M. Avishai, in: Al Hamishmar (March 4, 1977); A.H. Elhanani, “Ha-Otobiografyah shel Y. Keshet,” in: Al Hamishmar (Nov. 28, 1980); E. Ben Ezer, in: Haaretz (Jan. 30, 1981). [Getzel Kressel]

KESSAR, ISRAEL (1931– ), Israeli political and union leader, member of the Eleventh to Thirteenth Knessets. Born in Sanʿa, Yemen, Kessar was brought to Israel at the age of two. He went to school in Jerusalem. Before and after the War of Independence he studied and worked at the Youth Center for New Immigrants. In 1956 he received a B.A. in sociology and economics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. In 1960–61 he was employed as assistant and advisor to the minister of labor, Giora Josephtal, and in 1961–66 he served as head of the Department for Rehabilitation and Professional Direction in the Ministry of Labor. In 1966 he began his career in the *Histadrut, serving until 1971 as chairman of the Youth and Sports Department. In this period he was also appointed chairman of the Manpower Department of the Histadrut. He resumed his studies, and in 1972 completed an M.A. in Labor Studies at Tel Aviv University. In 1972–77 Kessar served as treasurer of the Histadrut, and in the latter year joined the Labor Party Secretariat. In the years 1977–84 he headed the Trade Union Section, and served as deputy secretary general of the Histadrut, under Yeruham Meshel. In 1984 he was elected on behalf of the Labor Party as secretary general of the Histadrut, and was elected to the Eleventh Knesset on the Alignment list. He supported the government economic stabilization plan when Shimon *Peres served as prime minister, and Yitzhak *Modai as minister of finance, but struggled to prevent a steep fall in real wages and an increase in unemployment. Kessar participated in the contest for the Labor Party leadership in 1992 against Yitzhak *Rabin, Peres and Ora *Namir, receiving close to 20 of the votes. Peres’ supporters argued that had Kessar withdrawn from the leadership contest, Peres, who received 34 of the vote, might have beaten Rabin, who received just over 40. In the Labor government of 1992–96 Kessar served as minister of transportation. He did not run in the elections to the Fourteenth Knesset owing to his wife’s poor health. [Susan Hattis Rolef (2nd ed.)]

90

KESSEL, BARNEY (1923–2004), U.S. guitarist. Kessel grew up on the same Oklahoma plains that nurtured Charlie Christian, the first great electric guitarist, and it was to Christian that Kessel first looked as an influence. Kessel bought his first guitar at age 12 with money he had saved from his paper route and taught himself to play by listening to radio broadcasts and imitating what he heard. Within two years, he was playing in a local band, the only white musician in an all-black unit. In 1938 he spent a long weekend playing and jamming with Christian and his musical style was changed forever. Ironically, it was playing with Christian in a jam session that led him to pursue his own style. He told The New York Times, “I realized that I had been methodically lifting his ideas from records. What was I going to play? All I knew was his stuff…. I knew I had to find myself.” With Christian’s encouragement, Kessel moved to Los Angeles and in 1942 took a job with Chico Marx’s band. He rapidly made a name for himself as a talented and versatile guitarist, playing with Benny *Goodman, Artie *Shaw, and Charlie Barnet. He became a mainstay of Norman *Granz’s Jazz at the Philharmonic troupe, appearing in the acclaimed 1944 short film Jammin’ the Blues, and finally hooking up with the Oscar Peterson Trio in the early 1950s. It was this last gig that earned him his most significant reputation as a jazz guitarist, but he also began spending a lot of time playing studio jobs for the movies, television, and commercials, as well as on records. Kessel can be heard on an astonishing range of recordings from the 1950s and 1960s, from Liberace to the Beach Boys, Frank Sinatra to Gene Autry. He continued to play jazz too, joining with fellow guitarists Herb Ellis and Charlie Byrd in the 1970s to form the group Great Guitars. Kessel was silenced in 1992 by a stroke from which he never recovered and died of brain cancer. Bibliography: P. Keepnews, “Barney Kessel, 80, a Guitarist with Legends of Jazz, Dies,” in: New York Times (May 8, 2004); “Barney Kessel,” in: Music Web Encyclopaedia of Popular Music, at: www.musicweb.uk.net; “Barney Kessel,” in: Times of London (May 13, 2004); “Musicians Gather to Perform at Benefit for Legendary Jazz Guitarist Barney Kessel,” in: Down Beat (June, 19, 2002). [George Robinson (2nd ed.)]

KESSEL, JOSEPH (1898–1979), French author. Kessel was born in Clara, one of the Jewish agricultural settlements in Argentina, where his father was physician. The family returned to Russia and, when Joseph was ten years old, settled in France. By 1915 he was already writing for the Journal des Débats, and he also began training as an actor. The following year, however, he volunteered for war service and became an officer in the air force. Between the two world wars Kessel built up a considerable reputation as a novelist, journalist, and writer of screenplays. When World War II broke out he became a war correspondent. After the fall of France he escaped to England and spent the rest of the war in a Free French air force squadron, flying special missions to occupied France. He received French, British, and American decorations. ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kestenberg, leo

Two of Kessel’s earliest books were La Steppe rouge (1922), a collection of travel sketches, and L’Equipage (1923), the first novel about French aviation, based on his experiences in World War I. Three other novels of this period were Nuits de princes (1927; Princes of the Night, 1928), a story with a Russian background; Belle de jour (1928), translated into English in 1962 and later filmed; and Vent de sable (1929). During the late 1920s and throughout the 1930s Kessel traveled extensively in the U.S. and in the Near and Far East. His lively reaction to people and events made him a compelling storyteller, and his books were easily adapted to the screen. His World War II story, Le bataillon du ciel (1947), was an aviation epic. Les mains du miracle (1960; The Magic Touch, 1961) is a biography of Felix Kersten, *Himmler’s Finnish physiotherapist, who saved many Jews from the Nazis. Kessel’s prizewinning book, Les coeurs purs (1927; The Pure in Heart, 1928), contained the story “Makhno et sa juive,” while Terre d’amour (1927) examined the Zionist experiment, but he was remote from Jewish life. The birth of the State of Israel, however, fired his imagination and Terre de feu, first published in 1948 and revised and enlarged many years later under the title Terre d’amour et de feu; Israël 1925–1948–1961 (1965), attests to his belief that Israel is one of the noblest enterprises of the 20t century. In his address upon his acceptance into the Académie Française in 1964 he spoke about his pride in being a Jew. Kessel’s works include a collection of essays, L’armée des ombres (1944; Army of Shadows, 1944), and the autobiographical Témoin parmi les hommes (1956). Among his novels are Le Tour du malheur (1950), Le Lion (1958; The Lion, 1959), Avec les alcooliques anonymes (1960; The Enemy in the Mouth, Brit. ed. 1961; The Road Back, U.S. ed. 1962); Le Coup de grâce (1953) and Les cavaliers (1967; The Horsemen, 1968). Bibliography: Vailland et al., in: Livres de France, 10 (October 1959), 2–12. [Moshe Catane]

KESSLER, DAVID (1860–1920), Yiddish actor. He was one of the leading actor-managers of the New York Yiddish theater during its heyday early in the twentieth century. Born in Kishinev, at the age of 20 he joined the troupe of Judel Goldfaden (brother of Abraham Goldfaden) and together they toured the towns of south Russia. When Yiddish theater was prohibited by the czar in 1883, he toured with S. *Mogulesco in Romania, went to London in 1886, and to New York in 1890. There he acted under Jacob *Adler in Jacob Gordin’s first play Siberia (1891), and soon made his name. He subsequently appeared in other plays by Gordin, enjoying great success in God, Man, and Devil. Others of his outstanding roles were in Sholem Asch’s God of Vengeance, David Pinski’s Yankel the Smith, and Leon Kobrin’s Yankel Boile. In 1913 he established the David Kessler Theater, which ranked with Adler’s and Thomashefsky’s theaters, and produced many plays by the leading Yiddish writers.

KESSLER, LEOPOLD (1864–1944), engineer and one of Herzl’s early aides. Born in Tarnowice, Upper Silesia, Kessler completed his studies and went to South Africa, where he was a consulting mining engineer. He was influenced by Zionism when Herzl’s Der Judenstaat was published, and from the Second Zionist Congress was one of Herzl’s loyal aides and a member of the Zionist General Council. He headed the scientific delegation to *El-Arish in 1903 and submitted its report on March 26. Later he was chairman of the Jewish National Fund in England. During World War I he became a member of the committee that helped Chaim Weizmann during the negotiations with the British government which led to the *Balfour Declaration. He also was chairman of the Zionist Federation of England (1922). From 1907 he served as a director of the Jewish Chronicle, assumed controlling editorship, and became its chairman in 1932. From 1939 Kessler lived in the United States, where he was active in the Freeland League, a territorialist association (see *Territorialism). His son, DAVID FRANCIS KESSLER (b. Pretoria, 1906), became managing director of the Jewish Chronicle in 1936 and chairman in 1958. Bibliography: C. Roth The Jewish Chronicle (1949), index; R. Patai, in: Herzl Year-Book, 1 (1958), 107–44. [Getzel Kressel]

KESTEN, HERMANN (1900–1996), German novelist. In 1927 Kesten became literary adviser to the Berlin publishing house of Kiepenheuer. He had to leave Germany in 1933 and was active in European refugee circles, but fled to the U.S.A. after the outbreak of World War II. He lived in New York for several years, but after the collapse of Fascism in Italy made his home in Rome. Kesten’s first novel, Josef sucht die Freiheit (1927), was translated into seven languages. Glueckliche Menschen (1931) and Der Scharlatan (1932) both deal with life in Berlin. During his exile, Kesten completed Ferdinand und Isabella (1936; U.S. ed. 1946; U.K. ed. Spanish Fire, 1946), a historical novel which recreates the period of the Jewish expulsion from Spain; and Koenig Philipp der Zweite (1938), which deals with Ferdinand and Isabella’s successor on the Spanish throne. Die Kinder von Gernika (1939) was written under the impact of the Spanish Civil War and portrays the tragic history of the Basques. Die fremden Goetter (1949) portrays the return to Judaism of a father and daughter during the Hitler era. Kesten’s many other works included biographies of Copernicus (1945; Copernicus and His World, 1946) and Casanova (1952), and various plays and essays. His writing is remarkable for its good-natured humor alternating with sardonic irony in a manner reminiscent of Heine. Although he depicts man’s inhumanity, Kesten also reveals his own faith in man and his love of freedom is combined with a sense of responsibility and duty. [Sol Liptzin]

[Joseph Leftwich]

KESTENBERG, LEO (1882–1962), pianist and music educator. Born in Rózsahegy (Rosenberg), Hungary, the son of a ḥ azzan, Kestenberg studied the piano in Berlin with

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

91

kestleman, morris

G. Albrecht, F. Kullak, and Ferruccio Busoni whose personality exercised a lasting influence on his career. Attaining early fame as a concert pianist, he at the same time joined the young Social-Democratic movement, and began to work toward his major ideal, the social integration of musical life. From 1905, Kestenberg organized the performances of the Freie Volksbuehne (Popular Theater) – folk choirs, concerts, and meetings. Especially after his appointment in 1918 as the music adviser, and in 1927, as the music counselor, at the Prussian Ministry of Culture, he turned to the thorough reform of musical education known today as the “Kestenberg-Reform.” His yearly educational decrees extended to music teachers in academies, seminaries, conservatories, schools, and kindergartens. In 1933, Kestenberg fled to Prague where he founded, under the sponsorship of the Czech Ministry of Education, the International Society for Music Education, which held three major international congresses. Arriving in Ereẓ Israel in 1938, he became the general manager of the Palestine Orchestra (later the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra). In 1945 Kestenberg founded the Music Teachers’ Training College in Tel Aviv, which he headed for over 15 years and regarded it as the fulfillment of his musical mission. At the college he realized for a third time his ideas on the role of music in the life of a nation. As professor at the Tel Aviv Academy of Music, he educated a number of well-known Israeli pianists. Among his publications are: Musikerziehung und Musikpflege (1921); Jahrbuch der deutschen Musikorganisation (1929); Kunst und Technik (1930); Bewegte Zeiten (autobiography, 1961); and he was the editor of Musikpaedagogische Bibliothek.

the major figures of David *Bomberg, Mark *Gertler, etc. His daughter Sarah Kestelman is a well-known actress, painter, and poet in London. [Charles Samuel Spencer]

KESZI (Kramer), IMRE (1910–1974), author and literary and music critic. A pupil of the composer Zoltán Kodály, Keszi wrote on Jewish themes and his World War II experiences. Among his books are A várakozók lakomája (“The Feast of Those Waiting,” 19441; 19692), stories and meditations on the Passover Seder; and two works on the Holocaust, Elysium (1958) and Szőlőből bor (“Wine from the Grape,” 1961).

KESTLEMAN, MORRIS (often spelled Kestelman; 1905– 1998), painter. Born in the East End of London, he became head of the Fine Art Department of the Central School of Art. He was influenced by his teacher Bernard *Meninsky, and also by Van Gogh and Gauguin. Two Anglo-Jewish artists also influenced his career, the painter and illustrator Barnett *Freedman and the print-maker Michael Rothenstein. He developed an interest in theater design and made a distinguished contribution in this field. He became a member, and secretary, of the London Group, was later vice chairman of the United Kingdom branch of the International Association of Art, and was a fellow of the Royal Academy. His mature work was influenced by Matisse, Braque, and Picasso, and his emotional character was thus tempered by controlled and elegant design; the English critic Bryan Robertson once remarked, “Kestleman cannot be judged as an English painter; he is a Continental artist who happens to reside here.” He belonged to the “second generation” of Anglo-Jewish artists, following

KETER PUBLISHING HOUSE, Israeli publisher. Keter operates its own independent book marketing and distribution network and is also a key provider of print services and book production for the Israeli market and export through its industrial division. Keter has been the most prominent publisher of contemporary Hebrew literature in Israel for many years, and its publishing activities cover a wide range of genres, including translated fiction and non-fiction, albums, guides and general trade books, children’s books, and multi-volume encyclopedias. Among the many contemporary Israeli writers Keter publishes are Aharon *Appelfeld, Amos *Oz, Alona Kimhi, Sayed Kashua, Savyon *Liebrecht, Uri *Orlev, and Zeruya *Shalev. Keter has published many translated works, including those of Douglas Adams, Paul Auster, Paolo Coelho, Sandor Marai, Haruki Murakami, Boris Pasternak, Philip Pulman, Salman Rushdie, W.G. Sebald, Susan Sontag, Donna Tartt, and Mario Vargas-Llosa. Keter is the publisher of the first edition of the Encyclopedia Judaica and is a co-publisher of the Junior Britannica. Operating from Jerusalem, the company was first established and owned by the Israeli government under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s Office in 1959 at the initiative of Teddy *Kollek, Jerusalem’s mayor (1965–93). Originally named The Israel Program for Scientific Translations (IPST), the company engaged in the translation and publishing of scientific and technical manuscripts from Russian into English, primarily for the National Science Foundation of the United States. During the 1960s the company began to diversify its publishing activities in English under the Israel Universities Press (IUP) and Keter Books imprints. The company was purchased from the government by Meniv Israel Investment Company in 1966 and subsequently sold to Clal Israel in 1969. At this time the company name was changed to Keter Publishing House, with key objectives to expand the publishing of titles concerned with Judaica and Israel for export, to publish the recently acquired Encyclopedia Judaica (published in 1972), and to establish an independent printing and bindery division (Keterpress Enterprises). During the late 1970s Keter consolidated its position as a leading publisher in Hebrew in all categories. Keter has been a public company since 1987. Controlling interest in the company was briefly held by Robert *Maxwell,

92

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: G. Braun, Die Schulmusikerziehung in Preussen. Von den Falkschen Bestimmungen bis zur Kestenberg-Reform (1957); E. Gerson-Kiwi, in: Acta Musicologica, 30 (1958), 17–26 (Eng.); idem, in: Gesher, 5:3 (1959), 110–1; idem, in: Haaretz, 25 (Nov. 30, 1942), 2; MGG, incl. bibl.; Grove, Dict; Baker, Biog Dict, incl. bibl.; Riemann-Gurlitt, incl. bibl. [Edith Gerson-Kiwi]

ketubbah

through Macmillan, at the beginning of the 1990s, and thereafter by Arledan, a Jerusalem based investment company. Keter has provided the managerial infrastructure for Sifriat Maariv, the Maariv daily newspaper’s imprint, since 2003. In 2005 Keter and the Steimatzky Group joined forces to form a new publishing and distribution partnership “Keter-Books” for titles published in Hebrew. The second edition of the Encyclopedia Judaica is now published by Thomson Gale, under license from Keter. KETI’A BAR SHALOM (first century C.E.), Roman councillor or senator who sacrificed his life to save the Jews of the Roman Empire from extermination (or persecution), probably toward the end of *Domitian’s reign (c. 96 C.E.). According to the main source (Av. Zar. 10b), an emperor who hated the Jews – presumably Domitian – consulted his councillors as to whether a sore on the foot should be cut away, i.e., whether the Jews should be exterminated, or be left alone to cause pain. The councillors favored “radical” treatment, but Keti’a b. Shalom pointed out that the Jews, scattered as they were all over the world, could not be exterminated anyway; that the world could not exist without Israel; and that the empire would be crippled without the Jews. The emperor agreed with the soundness of Keti’a’s reasoning, but nevertheless ordered him to be put to death. Advised by a Roman matron who exclaimed, “Pity the ship that sails without paying the tax,” Keti’a circumcised himself, so that he should enter paradise as a Jew. Just before his execution he willed all his property to R. Akiva (cf. Ned. 50b) and his colleagues who were in Rome at the time. In a similar story told in Deuteronomy Rabbah 2:24, an unnamed senator commits suicide (after having himself circumcised) in order to annul a Senate decree to exterminate the Jews within 30 days. Graetz plausibly identifies Keti’a with Flavius *Clemens, Domitian’s nephew, who was executed for “atheism,” i.e., for Judaizing tendencies. Keti’a b. Shalom is a fictitious name meaning “through circumcision he obtained salvation” (so J.Z. Lauterbach, quoted by Braude) or, more probably, “the circumcised one, may he rest in peace.”

16b), but the halakhah was decided to the effect that a ketubbah deed must always be written, since it is forbidden for the bridegroom to cohabit with his bride until he has written and delivered the ketubbah to her (Maim. Yad, Ishut 10:7; Sh. Ar., EH 66:1). On the other hand, they are allowed to cohabit only when they are married, and so the ketubbah deed must be ready for delivery to the bride when the betrothal blessings (berakhot ha-erusin) are recited and before the recital of the marriage blessings (berakhot ha-nissu’in; see *Marriage). Since in modern times it is customary in practically all communities to celebrate the kiddushin and nissu’in at the same time, the deed must be ready at the commencement of the recital of the berakhot ha-erusin. At the present time a standard form of ketubbah deed is normally used, which is read before the bridegroom and the witnesses and signed by them (for a standard ketubbah deed, see A.A. Rodner, Mishpetei Ishut, 179f.). The ketubbah was instituted for the purpose of protecting the woman, “so that he shall not regard it as easy to divorce her” (Ket. 11a; Yev. 89a; Maim. loc. cit.), i.e., in order to render it difficult for the husband to divorce his wife by obliging him to pay her, in the event of a *divorce, the sum mentioned in the ketubbah, which generally exceeded the sum due to her according to law. As this is the object of the ketubbah, some scholars are of the opinion that since the ḥ erem of Rabbenu *Gershom, which prohibited the divorce of a wife against her will, the same object is achieved in any event; it is therefore argued – on the analogy of Ketubbot 54a concerning the ravished woman who is thereafter married by her ravisher and, according to pentateuchal law, cannot be divorced – that there is no longer any need for a ketubbah to be written. However it has remained the halakhah that a ketubbah is to be written (Rema EH 66:3, concl.). The amounts specified in the ketubbah deed are those of the “main” ketubbah and its increment (ikkar ketubbah and tosefet ketubbah) and those of the *dowry and its increment, which amounts the wife is entitled to receive upon divorce or the death of her husband (Sh. Ar., EH 93:1).

The Concept In talmudic times in certain places it was customary to dispense with the writing of a ketubbah deed, relying on the fact that the said obligations are in any event imposed by law (Ket.

The “Main” Ketubbah and its Increment The “main” ketubbah specifies the amount determined by law as the minimum that the wife is entitled to receive from her husband or his estate on the dissolution of the marriage (Sh. Ar., loc. cit.). According to some scholars the liability to pay the main ketubbah is pentateuchal law (Ex. 22:15–16 and Rashi thereto; Mekh. Nezikin 17; Ket. 10a and Rashi thereto), but the halakhah is that the ketubbah is rabbinical law (Ket. loc. cit; Yad, Ishut 10:7; Ḥ elkat Meḥ okek 66, n. 26). The minimum amount, as laid down in the Talmud, is 200 zuz in the case of a virgin and 100 zuz in all other cases (Ket. 10b; Sh. Ar., EH 66:6). Since in all matters concerning the ketubbah local custom is followed, the equivalent of the main ketubbah is fixed in accordance with custom and with the kind and value of the currency prevailing at the respective place (Ket. 66b; Yad, Ishut 23:12; Sh. Ar., EH 66:6, Rema EH 66:11). The said minimum amount is an obligation imposed on the husband

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

93

Bibliography: Graetz, Gesch, 4 (19084), 109–11, 402f.; idem, in: MGWJ, 1 (1852), 192–202; J. Kobak, in: Jeshurun, 8 (1871/72), Heb. pt. 161–70; B.J. Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period (1939; repr. 1968), 235–8, 279, 282f.; W.G. Braude, Jewish Proselyting (1940), 75; Alon, Toledot3, 1 (1959), 74f. [Moses Aberbach]

KETUBBAH (Heb. ‫) ְּכ ֻת ָ ּבה‬, a document recording the financial obligations which the husband undertakes toward his wife in respect of, and consequent to, their marriage, obligations which in principle are imposed on him by law. For the ketubbah of a betrothed woman (arusah) see *Marriage.

ketubbah

by virtue of a rabbinical regulation (takkanat bet din), i.e., he is liable to pay this even when a lesser amount has been fixed in the ketubbah or no deed at all has been written (Ket. 51a). The authorities were at pains to safeguard the woman’s rights in this respect, condemning cohabitation as tantamount to prostitution if the amount fixed as the main ketubbah is less than the said legal minimum (R. Meir, Ket. 54b; Sh. Ar., EH 66:9). The only circumstances in which the husband is exempted from meeting his obligations under the ketubbah are those in which the wife forfeits her ketubbah according to law (see *Divorce). If the husband so wishes, he may add to the minimum amount of the ketubbah, an increment known as the tosefet ketubbah. Here, too, local custom prevails: i.e., if by virtue of local custom or rabbinical regulation it is customary for an increment to be made, the husband will be bound by this and cannot stipulate less (Sh. Ar., EH 66:9–11). The general custom at the present time is to grant the increment, and this is also reflected in the standard form of the ketubbah deed. It is not required that the two amounts be separately stated in the deed; they may be fixed as an aggregate amount, provided that this is not less than the minimum locally determined for the main ketubbah (Rema EH 66:7). In 1953 it was laid down by the chief rabbinate of the State of Israel that the minimum amount of the ketubbah – i.e., for the main ketubbah and its increment – must not be less than IL200 for a virgin and IL100 for a widow or divorcee. The law regarding the increment is generally the same as that regarding the main ketubbah, unless the halakhah expressly stipulates otherwise (Maim. Yad, Ishut 10:7; Sh. Ar., EH 66:7). Dowry (Aram. ‫נְ דוּנְ יָ א‬, nedunya) In addition to the above-mentioned amounts, there is also fixed in the ketubbah deed the amount which the husband – of his own free will and by virtue of his undertaking under the ketubbah deed – renders himself liable to return to his wife, when he pays her the ketubbah, as the equivalent of her dowry (within the restricted meaning of term). This amount is called nedunya, and the husband’s liability to return it becomes a monetary debt and a charge upon his estate (Rema EH 66:11). The question of whether, in the event of a fluctuation in currency values, the wife is entitled to recover the dowry to the amount specified in the ketubbah deed or according to its equivalent at the time of the recovery is greatly influenced by local law and custom concerning the repayment of a regular debt in such circumstances (Resp. Ḥ atam Sofer, EH 1:126). Since the husband is permitted by law to trade with the dowry, it is the accepted custom for him to undertake liability for an increment to the dowry, i.e., to pay his wife an additional amount over and above the amount specified as the dowry; this is known as the dowry increment (tosefet nedunya), and all laws of the dowry are applicable to it. The usual custom, from early times, is to fix this increment at one-half of the sum specified as the dowry. As in all matters concerning the ketubbah, local custom is followed, this custom has

94

become obligatory on the bridegroom; thus he undertakes in the ketubbah deed to pay the main ketubbah and the dowry, together with their increments (Sh. Ar., EH 66:11). The Custom Concerning Consolidation of all the Ketubbah Amounts As it is not required that the component amounts of the ketubbah be stated separately, an aggregate amount may be fixed, but it is also customary in some countries to enumerate them first separately and then state the aggregate amount (for the custom in Israel, see Rodner op. cit.). If, therefore, separate amounts for the component portions are not expressly stated, they are deemed to be included in the aggregate amount specified in the deed (Rema EH 66:7, concl.). Since, generally speaking, the possibility of divorcing a wife without her consent is precluded by the ḥ erem of Rabbenu Gershom, and in practice she may make her consent conditional on the satisfaction of her pecuniary claims, it is customary in many countries of the Diaspora to specify a nominal amount only for each or all of the ketubbah components (e.g., 200 zekukim kesef ẓ aruf: see Baḥ EH 66). If, however, the wife is able to establish that the amount was written as a mere formality and not with the intention of limiting her rights, and that in fact the value of the property brought by her to the marriage exceeded the amount specified in the ketubbah deed, there is no legal obstacle to her obtaining satisfaction of her claims as far as she may prove them due to her. In the State of Israel it is the custom to specify in the ketubbah a realistic amount according to the specific respective facts. In cases where the wife “forfeits” her ketubbah, the effect, in general, is that the husband is released from his liability to pay her those portions of the ketubbah which had to come out of his own pocket, i.e., the main ketubbah and its increment; in the absence of any express halakhic rule to the contrary, the wife does not forfeit the dowry or its equivalent, which is regarded as her own property, even when she is obliged to accept a bill of divorce with forfeiture of her ketubbah (see, e.g., Sh. Ar., EH 115:5). The Ketubbah Conditions (Heb. ‫) ְּתנָ ֵאי ְּכ ֻת ָ ּבה‬ The financial obligations imposed on the husband by law (see *Husband and Wife) and specified in the ketubbah – in addition to the amount the wife is entitled to receive on divorce or the death of her husband – are called the “ketubbah conditions” (Maim. Yad, Ishut 12:2). The rule is that “the ketubbah conditions follow the law applying to the ketubbah itself ” (Yev. 89a); i.e., insofar as the wife is entitled to the main ketubbah, she is also entitled to the rights due to her under the ketubbah conditions. On the other hand, her forfeiture of the right to the main ketubbah also carries with it the loss of her rights under the ketubbah conditions, such as her maintenance (Yev. loc. cit.; Rashi and Asheri thereto; see also Sh. Ar., EH 115:5). Loss of the Ketubbah Deed Just as the bridegroom is forbidden to cohabit with his bride after marriage unless he has written and delivered the ketubENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

ketubbah

bah to her, so the husband is forbidden to live with his wife for even one hour if she has no main ketubbah deed. Therefore, in the case of loss or destruction of the deed, the husband is obliged to write a new one, and, since the loss of the original deed does not relieve the husband of his obligations under it, the new deed must ensure the rights that the wife was entitled to under the original one (Sh. Ar., EH 66:3; Ḥ elkat Meḥ okek 66, no. 14; for an example of such a deed (‫ )כתבה דאירכסא‬see Tur, EH after 66). For the same reason, the wife’s waiver of her ketubbah is of no effect in respect to the main ketubbah, and in such an event the husband is also obliged to write a new deed for her, but here only in respect of the main ketubbah (Sh. Ar., loc. cit.; for an example of such a ketubbah, see Tur, loc. cit.). For recovery of the ketubbah, see *Divorce, *Widow, and *Limitation of Actions.

THE KETUBBAH’S PRACTICAL RELEVANCE. In some, albeit not many, cases, a ketubbah has practical legal relevance, and the rabbinical courts, and even the civil courts, do obligate the husband to pay the ketubbah. Alternatively, they may impose a different obligation, while relying on the sum recorded in the ketubbah. It should be noted that Israeli law recognizes the ketubbah as a binding document (Section 17 of the Monetary

Relations (Spouses) Law 1973; as well as in various sections of the Succession Law, 1965). For this reason, in recent years prominent halakhic authorities have exhorted the public not to ridicule the sum recorded in the ketubbah, not to fix exaggerated sums for the ketubbah and the increment, and not to treat it as a purely ceremonial document (Resp. Iggerot Moshe, EH 4:92). This is the legal situation in the State of Israel. By contrast, in civil courts in the United States, the ketubbah is related to as a purely ceremonial document, with no legal force attaching to it. The commitment of civil courts in Israel to the ketubbah and its laws is similarly limited. Inter alia, this matter finds expression with respect to imposing a lien on the property to secure the ketubbah. In a recent case, a husband transferred title on his apartment to his father’s name before his own death. The rabbinical court ruled that, as there was no other property from which to collect on the ketubbah, the wife was entitled to collect from the apartment that had been transferred to her father-in-law’s name. Yet the Supreme Court annulled this ruling, since the rabbinical courts lacked the authority to adjudicate the case between the wife and her late husband’s father, who did not consent to the rabbinical court’s adjudication of the case (HC 2621, Levi v. Rabbinical Court, 54 (3) PD 809). Recently, a number of halakhic authorities have related to the ketubbah as a document designed to provide a woman with minimum sustenance during the initial period following divorce. The background to this is as follows: the Sages fixed the sum of the ketubbah as an amount that in their times was considered sufficient to support a person for a year, even if this was not the main purpose underlying its institution. Therefore, today, in wake of our above comments, we should view this as its primary purpose. Accordingly, rabbinical courts occasionally rule that the debt owed by force of the ketubbah be treated as a debt for the non-payment of alimony, i.e., mezonot after the get. In terms of Israeli law, the significance of this distinction is that, in execution proceedings, a debt for mezonot has priority over all other debt, and in contradistinction to a regular debt, the debtor can even be imprisoned for failure to pay a mezonot debt. In this manner the ketubbah can be utilized for collecting payments from a husband who attempts to evade payment. The ketubbah may also be resorted to in cases of recalcitrant husbands who refuse to give a get. When the rabbinical court rules that the man is obligated to give a get, he can be compelled to pay the ketubbah and to return the dowry even before the giving of the get. If the ground for divorce is the husband’s behavior, then even the ketubbah’s increment can be included in this sum. These means can also serve to pressure a recalcitrant husband into giving the get (Resp. Ketav Sofer, EH 100; Resp. Even Yekarah no. 53). The Rabbinical Court of Appeals recently ruled that payment of both the ketubbah and its increment may be imposed independent of the completion of the divorce proceedings. (See *Divorce).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

95

In the State of Israel The wife’s rights under the ketubbah are unaffected by the laws of the State of Israel. However, according to the Succession Law 5725/1965, whatever she receives on the strength of her ketubbah must be taken into account against her rights of inheritance or of maintenance from the estate of her deceased husband (sec. 11 (c); 59). [Ben-Zion (Benno) Schereschewsky]

Status of the Ketubbah in Modern Times POLICY OF THE RABBINICAL COURTS. In general, when a divorce suit reaches the rabbinical courts, the court recommends to the couple that they arrive at a consensual agreement regarding the division of their joint property, and only afterwards does the court transact their get (bill of divorcement). In most cases, division of property involves, inter alia, the wife foregoing all rights entailed in the ketubbah deed. The courts tend not to enforce the commitments included in the ketubbah owing to their concern that enforcing the additional debts included in the ketubbah’s increment (tosefet ketubbah) would trigger additional disputes between the husband and wife. As a result, the husband might find himself in the position of being forced to give the get, and the get would thus become a get me’useh, a coerced get. Moreover, the reason for the ketubbah’s enactment – “so that he shall not regard it as easy to divorce her” (Ket. 39b) – has lost much of its significance, given that Rabbenu Gershom’s enactment prohibits a man divorcing his wife against her will. In most cases, therefore, the parties come to an agreement on monetary matters before the divorce, in order to expedite their agreement on the divorce per se.

ketubbah

THE SUM OF THE KETUBBAH. In the regulations enacted by the Chief Rabbinate of Ereẓ Israel in 1944, a minimum sum was fixed for the ketubbah. In today’s terms, that sum sufficed to fulfill the Sages’ intent of preventing the husband from viewing divorce lightly. This sum was increased in regulations enacted in 1953. Obviously today, after so many years, and extensive inflation, these sums are meaningless, and each couple decides on a generic amount when the ketubbah is written. In some cases, pressure exerted by family members, or the couple’s excitement over their approaching wedding, leads to the stipulation of exaggerated sums in the ketubbah. In such cases, rabbinic authorities and dayyanim are divided over whether these sums are binding. One view is that, so long as the groom does not swear to the amount of the sum when signing the ketubbah, it should not be given binding force. Rather, the husband should be obligated to pay the primary sum of the ketubbah (ikkar ha-kettubah) without the increment, i.e., the value of two hundred zuz. This view regards the original undertaking solely as an asmakhta (see *Asmakhta), i.e., the person assumed an obligation without really intending to be bound thereby, but was only exaggerating, or operated on the belief that the obligation would never actually take effect. Another view is that, in principle, even a large sum binds the husband, in accordance with the ruling of Keẓ ot ha-Hoshen (264:4) that a person cannot claim “I was only joking with you,” provided that he either swears or shakes hands on the agreement (see *Undertaking), and also because the undertakings included in the ketubbah are considered as essential preconditions for marital life. Nevertheless, when a manifestly “astronomical” sum is involved, to the extent that it is obvious that neither party ever contemplated the possibility of the sum being binding, the husband cannot be compelled to pay it. In such a case, even according to the second view, the husband should be required to pay a ketubbah and increment “in accordance with accepted practice and the family’s social level, whatever is accepted amongst families of that ethnic community in our day.” A third opinion is that, fundamentally, the husband is obligated by any amount he undertook, even if exorbitant. The mere fact of his having undertaken to pay that amount is tantamount to an acknowledgment that he has the sum at his disposal and, accordingly, the law of asmakhta does not apply to the sum of his ketubbah. In a ruling by the Rabbinical Court of Appeals (2128/48 PDR 15, 211), the majority of dayyanim ruled in accordance with the second opinion. In 2000, the Chief Rabbinate issued a proclamation that there is no minimum sum for the ketubbah, but that the maximum sum of the ketubbah’s increment is NIS 1,000,000. Furthermore, when the sum stipulated in the ketubbah is only an expression of respect for the proceedings, or symbolic in some other way, the question of asmakhta also arises. Regarding cases in which the sum is not exorbitant, the Rabbinical Court of Appeals rejected the husband’s claim that the sum has no binding significance, ruling that it is legally binding.

96

The husband’s argument that he did not understand the ketubbah’s wording, or the implications of specifying such a large sum when he signed it, is unacceptable. After all, there is also the testimony of the witnesses who are signed on the ketubbah, and “for it is presumed that they did not sign without their first having orally testified (i.e., orally explained the document they were signing) in his presence, for without this presumption, there would be no possibility of obliging the ignorant … to comply with their obligation under the kettubah … for they would all raise this claim” (Resp. Rashba 1:629; Rema, Sh. Ar. EH 66:13). REVALUATING THE KETUBBAH AMOUNT. When the bet din or the court rules on the husband’s obligation to pay the ketubbah, the question arises as to how to revaluate the ketubbah. This is particularly relevant during inflationary periods, when there is liable to be an immense discrepancy between its value at the time it was signed and its value at the time of divorce or the husband’s death. The Israeli rabbinical courts have adopted various methods for revaluating the ketubbah. The ketubbah cannot be reassessed unless it explicitly states how it should be reassessed. The possibilities for revaluation include linking it to the American dollar; linking it to the consumer price index; leaving the original sum but obligating the husband in accordance with the currency used at the time of payment; arbitration (Takkanat Ra’anaḥ – i.e., the Enactment of Rabbi Eliyahu ben Ḥ ayyim; see Resp. Maharit EH 2); linkage to the silver standard; reevaluation of the sum so that it does not fall below the amount needed to support the wife for a year. PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS. Given that in most instances the ketubbah does not actually fulfill its purpose of regulating the couple’s financial relationship at the time of the divorce, in recent years there has been a growing tendency to use prenuptial financial agreements between the couple for that purpose. Besides serving a monetary role similar to that of the ketubbah, these agreements also assist in preventing refusal to grant a get, as within the framework of these agreements both parties undertake a legal or financial commitment which spurs them into giving a get in the event of the marriage failing and one of the parties desiring to terminate it. These agreements raise a number of problems in the context of the laws of divorce, such as the risk of a “coerced get” (get me’useh), questions with which halakhic authorities have dealt extensively in recent years (see Bibliography; see *Divorce). DIVORCE COMPENSATION. In addition to the wife’s ketubbah rights, the rabbinical court sometimes rules that the husband must pay her compensation. The roots of this compensation award are found in a number of responsa from the last few hundred years, and in the mid-20t century the matter became a binding minhag, conferring on the wife a right to receive part of the joint property. This compensation, which can be viewed as a quasi “equitable right,” is similar in purpose and source to the joint property presumption (see *Matrimonial Property). ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

ketubbah

It serves to provide the woman with part of the property created during the years of marriage, through the couple’s joint efforts. In addition, it provides the wife with economic stability during the period following the divorce. Originally, the Israel Supreme Court distinguished between divorce compensation and the joint property rule, explaining that the latter is based on the legal presumption that, when the couple wed, their intent was that their property be shared between them equally. By contrast, the law of divorce compensation does not derive from any presumption. Rather, “its source lies in the principle of justice and fairness, for it is fitting for the wife to be compensated in accordance with her efforts in raising and nurturing the family unit … in order to enable her reasonable subsistence after the divorce” (CA 630/70, Lieberman v. Lieberman, PD 35(4), 373, per Justice Menachem Elon). However, in recent years the Supreme Court’s justification for the joint property rule has changed, and it is now similarly regarded as deriving from principles of justice and fairness, and a number of halakhic authorities have noted the similarity of the logic behind the presumption regarding joint property and the logic guiding a Rabbinical court to award divorce compensation. (For an elaboration on this point, see *Matrimonial Property). Some halakhic authorities, however, oppose giving the wife divorce compensation, because it has no halakhic basis. In their view, such compensation can only be awarded as a means of effecting a divorce when a problem arises in attaining the wife’s consent. In recent years, in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court, even rabbinical courts are obligated to divide the property up equally in accordance with the joint property rule (regarding the way the halakhah relates to this, see *Dina de-Malkhuta Dina). This division of property does not apply to obligations deriving from the ketubbah. Hence, the Rabbinic courts need to proceed with caution, lest a situation be created in which a woman receives double rights. [Menachem Elon (2nd ed.)]

Conservative and Reform To meet and resolve the problem presented in Jewish law by the *Agunah, the Rabbinical Assembly of America (Conservative) in 1953 adopted a takkanah (“enactment”) proposed by Saul *Lieberman. The enactment went into effect in 1954 and the modified form of the ketubbah into which it was incorporated is currently widely used by Conservative Rabbis. The additional clause in both the Aramaic and English versions of the ketubbah provides that both bride and bridegroom “agree to recognize the Beth Din of the Rabbinical Assembly and the Jewish Theological Seminary of America … as having authority … to summon either party at the request of the other in order to enable the party so requesting to live in accordance with the laws of Jewish marriage ….” By mutual agreement, the “Beth Din” is authorized to impose such terms of compensation as it may see fit for failure to respond to its summons or to carry out its decision. The clause is aimed to compel a ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

recalcitrant husband or wife divorced by civil law to agree to the writing and acceptance of the traditional get. At the time of marriage, the ketubbah is filled out in duplicate by the officiating rabbi and the copy is forwarded for filing at the marriage registry established by the Rabbinical Assembly. Reform Judaism has dropped the use of the traditional ketubbah. Instead, most Reform rabbis issue a marriage certificate drawn up by the Central Conference of American Rabbis (Reform). The certificate makes no reference to the halakhic formulations of the traditional ketubbah. [Theodore Friedman]

Illuminated Ketubbot Most Jewish communities have followed the custom of decorating the ketubbah. An Ashkenazi ketubbah from Krems. Austria, dated 1392, shows that illumination was usual among Ashkenazi communities during the Middle Ages. However, the best-known illuminated ketubbot, which date from the 16t century onward, were from Italy, certain Sephardi communities, and from Near and Far Eastern Jewry. EUROPEAN KETUBBOT. Richly illuminated ketubbot, which date from the 17t and 18t centuries, are from Italy, Corfu, the Balkans, and Gibraltar. They are written on parchment and the text is usually bordered by an illuminated frame, depicting a variety of decorative themes in many bright colors. The frame, which is sometimes divided into a diptych, is often illustrated with biblical or mythological motifs, portraits of the bride and groom in contemporary costume, family coats of arms, symbols representing conjugal bliss, and even nude figures. Typical Jewish symbols were used, such as the hands forming the priestly blessing, a sign that the groom was from a family of kohanim, or a ewer and basin indicating a levite. Sometimes, the biblical figures represented in the ketubbah symbolize the bride or groom’s name; thus a scene from the life of Joseph might mean that the groom’s name was Joseph, a scene from the Book of Ruth that the bride’s name was Ruth. Dutch Sephardi ketubbot of the same period are distinguished by their delicate ornamental engraving. They were mainly executed on parchment and are in the best Dutch copper-engraving tradition. An outstanding example is a 1658 Rotterdam ketubbah, executed by Shalom Italia, a copper engraver from Mantua who emigrated to Holland. This ketubbah is rich in biblical motifs. Another famous copperengraved ketubbah, dating from the late 17t century, is decorated with flowers and allegorical figures in the typical DutchJewish contemporary manner. The border contains the date 1693, commemorating the year of the death of the renowned Amsterdam rabbi, Isaac *Aboab de Fonseca. EASTERN KETUBBOT. Ketubbot from the Near East and countries bordering Israel are decorated in a manner different from the European ones. They are mostly on paper and are decorated with plant motifs, mainly flowers, or geometric patterns similar to carpet patterns. The best-known examples are from the Persian community of *Isfahan, which

97

ketubbot

also feature the national emblems of Persia, the lion, a halfsun with a face, and sometimes a sword. Other noteworthy Persian ketubbot are from Hamadan. The decorations of these ketubbot sometimes include wood-block prints. The ketubbot from the Teheran community were made in the form of small booklets. Their pages are illuminated in typical Persian style. Other interesting Persian ketubbot are from *Meshed. In 1839, the Jews of Meshed were forcibly converted to Islam. They thus prepared two ketubbot for the marriage ceremony: one in Arabic and Persian in order to prove that the couple were Muslim, and an “illegal” one in Hebrew and Aramaic, in the Jewish form. These ketubbot were decorated with an abundance of colored flowers. Ketubbot from the *Herat community in Afghanistan are noteworthy for the delicate composition of garlands and wreaths of colored flowers surmounting the text. One interesting feature of Persian and Afghan ketubbot is that the signature of the illuminator sometimes appears on the bottom margin. Although the Yemenite ketubbot were mostly undecorated, an occasional gaily-colored example is to be found. Human forms, as well as flower motifs, appear in the Sanʿa ketubbah of 1793 in the Israel Museum. Ketubbot from North Africa are illuminated with multicolored decorations, but are mainly distinguished by the exquisitely written text. Sometimes the frame is decorated with black-white arabesques. Indian ketubbot, from Calcutta and Bombay, are written on parchment and decorated with colored ornamentation. These ketubbot are heavily influenced by Indian art motifs, such as gateways and animals. Those from *Cochin bore above the text a circle with verses of good omen, the whole in a floral border. The typical 19t-century Jerusalem ketubbah, although belonging geographically to the Arab countries, shows no evidence of this in its decorative style. The most commonly used ornamentation is a garland of flowers over the text, with palm or cypress trees on either side.

M. Elon and B. Lifshitz, Mafte’aḥ ha-She’elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥ akhmei Sefarad u-Ẓ efon Afrikah (legal digest) (1986), 1:195–201; B. Lifshitz and E. Shochetman, Mafte’aḥ ha-She’elot ve-ha-Teshuvot shel Ḥ akhmei Ashkenaz, Ẓ arefat ve-Italyah (legal digest) (1977), 143–47; A. Bar Shalom, Mishpat ha-Ketubbah, 1–2 (1995); Z. Boblil, “Ketubbah Mufrezet u-Piẓ u’ei Gerushin,” in: Teḥ umin, 25 (2005), 204–15; M. Broid, Y. Reis, and Z. Boblil, “Erkah shel Ketubbah,” in: Teḥ umin 25 (2005), 180–94; S. Dikhovsky, “Heskemei Mammon Kedam-Nissu’in,” in: Teḥ umin 21 (2001), 279–87; idem, “Ḥ iyyuvei Haẓ madah be-Batei Din Rabbaniyyim,” in: Dinei Yisrael, 12–13 (1984–85), 103–18; G. Gorman, “Shi’arukh ha-Ketubbah,” in: Teḥ umin, 25 (2005), 195–203; D. Mikhelov, “Heskemim Kedam-Nissuin,” in: Dinei Yisrael, 12–13 (1984–85), 324–39; P. Shiffman, Dinei ha-Mishpaḥ a be-Yisrael (1995); B. Schereschewsky, Dinei ha-Mishpaḥ ah (19934), 89–95.

[David Davidovitch] Bibliography: A. Buechler, in: Festschrift … Lewy (1911), 118, 122–9; J.S. Zuri, Mishpat ha-Talmud, 2 (1921), 57–93; Gulak, Yesodei, 3 (1922), 35f., 46f., 60–63; idem, Oẓ ar, 28–30, 41–67, 93–109, 167–70; idem, in: Tarbiz, 3 (1932), 249–57; S. Zeitlin, in: JQR, 24 (1933–34), 1–7; L.M. Epstein, The Jewish Marriage Contract (1927); Ḥ . Albeck, in: Koveẓ Madda’i le-Zekher Moshe Schorr (1945), 12–24; ET, 2 (1949), 18, 183f.; N. Lamm, in: Tradition, 2 (1959/60), 93–113; S. Goren, in: Maḥ anayim, no. 83 (1963), 5–14; B. and H. Goodman, The Jewish Marriage Anthology (1965); Elon, Mafte’aḥ , 114–20. ILLUMINATED: D. Davidovitz, Ha-Ketubbah ki-Khetav-Yad Ommanuti (1963); idem, Ketuba: Jewish Marriage Contracts through the Ages (Eng. and Heb., 1968); M. Gaster, Ketubah (1923); Roth, Art, index; Meyer, Art, index; F. Landsberger, A History of Jewish Art (1946); Narkiss, in: Tarbiz, 25 (1955/56), 441–51; 26 (1956/57), 87–101; Yoel, in: KS, 38 (1962), 122–32. Add. Bibliography: M. Elon, Ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri (1988), 1:112f, 116, 188, 190f., 205, 336, 351–56, 362, 373f., 403f., 449f., 458f., 470f., 483, 485f., 531, 540f., 543, 577, 633, 637, 640, 651, 653, 663, 672, 682f., 773f., 775, 794f.; 2:887, 1233, 1339; 3:1473; idem, Jewish Law (1994), 1:126f, 130, 211, 213f., 231, 403, 424–30, 437, 452f., 491f., 547f., 559f., 573f., 588, 590f., 646, 658f., 661, 711, 783, 789, 792, 805, 808, 820, 830, 841f., 951f., 953, 974f.; 3:1070, 1476, 1599; 4:1573; M. Elon, Ma’amad ha-Ishah (2005), 233ff., 259–62, 266, 278 ff., 285; idem, Ḥ akikah Datit (1968), 165–67;

KETUBBOT (Heb. ‫“ ; ְּכ ֻתבּ וֹ ת‬Marriage Contracts”), second tractate in the order Nashim, dealing with rights and duties arising out of the contract of marriage. Ketubbah, literally, “that which is written,” denotes in this tractate not so much the marriage document itself (see *Ketubbah) as the obligations statutorily contained in it. In fact, according to Mishnah 4:7–12, the usual terms of a ketubbah are binding upon husband and wife even if no document has been drawn up. The word ketubbah came to be identified with the most important provision in the marriage contract from the point of view of the halakhah, namely the sum of money due to the wife if she is divorced or widowed. Thus, throughout this tractate, phrases like “the ketubbah is so-and-so many zuzim,” or “she is entitled to the ketubbah” refer to the amount due to the wife according to the ketubbah. The ketubbah of a virgin was fixed at 200 zuzim while that of a non-virgin, by rabbinical enactment, at 100 zuzim. This distinction between virgin and non-virgin as it relates to the amount of the ketubbah takes up much of the first two chapters of this tractate. In this context the proof of *virginity is widely discussed, with digressions, for most of the second chapter, into general questions of trustworthiness and evidence. Chapter 3 deals with fines payable in cases of rape and seduction (Ex. 22:15; Deut. 22:29). Chapter 4, after stating that fines for seduction to a girl go to her father, mentions other rights of the father vis-à-vis his daughter; the chapter also includes duties incumbent upon the husband even if not written in the ketubbah. Chapters 5–6 deal mostly with the mutual rights and duties of husband and wife in marital and material respects, and also touches on the question of a daughter’s dowry. Chapter 7 deals with circumstances in which a woman can demand divorce and receive her statutory ketubbah money, and gives instances in which a man can divorce a woman without being liable to pay the ketubbah. Chapters 8–9 deal with the rights of the woman to her own property and with her claims upon her husband’s property after his death. Chapter 10, in the context of polygamy, deals with the problem of adjudicating the conflicting claims of several wives. Chapters 11 and 12 deal with the rights of the widow and the duties of heirs toward her (whether she is their mother or stepmother), and the position of the stepdaughter. Chapter 13 has a distinctive character, quoting various halakhot

98

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kever avot

periority of Ereẓ Israel, the concluding portion of the tractate is dedicated to praise of that land. The aggadic portion starts with the saying (110b) that one should live in Israel, even in a town with a heathen majority, rather than in the Diaspora, even if it be a place abounding with Jews; its concluding sentence expounds Joel 2:22, stating that in Israel even the barren trees will bear fruit.

of earlier authorities (Adom and Hanan). The last Mishnah speaks of the great merit of living in the land of Israel (especially in Jerusalem), with the halakhic consequence that if a man wishes to go to live in Israel and a woman refuses to go with him, he can divorce her without payment of the ketubbah, and if she wishes to do so and he refuses, she is entitled to divorce with ketubbah. According to Epstein (Tann’aim, passim), Mishnah 10:4 belongs to the Mishnah of R. Nathan (Ket. 93a), while 3:1; 7:10; 8:3, 7 belong to that of R. Meir, and 1:5 to that of R. Judah b. Ilai. The Tosefta has 12 chapters. Interesting differences between the marriage customs of Judea and Galilee are mentioned in 1:4. There are several independent passages of ancient origin, one of which, 4:1–3, contrasts the respective rights of the father, husband, and levir of a woman. Another, 4:9–14, lists a series of laws each beginning with the phrase, “Rabbi [so and so] expounded.” A. Weiss discerned three major strata in the Babylonian Talmud to Ketubbot: The most ancient contains the opinions of Rav and Samuel and the teachings of the academy of *Pumbedita. The second stratum is that of Abbaye and Rava, who also lived in Pumbedita, but part of Rava’s sayings originate from other academies. The third stratum is Papa’s, and hails from his academy in Naresh. These three strata do not receive equal representation in the Gemara. Thus, although chapter 7 is replete with the opinion of Samuel on almost every Mishnah (cf. 77a, where R. Assi testified to Samuel’s having delved deeply into the chapter), chapter 3 contains almost no material of this stratum and is dominated by the viewpoints of rabbis of the second and third strata. This pattern of chapter 3 is also seen in chapters 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (Hithavvut ha-Talmud bi-Shelemuto (1943), 6–27). Both the Jerusalem and the Babylonian Talmuds maintain that the Roman governor insisted on the jus primae noctis. According to the Jerusalem Talmud, in order to prevent this it became customary for the groom to have intercourse with his bride while she was still in her father’s house, a custom which remained in effect even after the decree was no longer enforced (1:5; 25c). Another saying is that God valued the mitzvah of procreation over that of the construction of the Temple (5:7; 30a,b). The entire passage of 12:3, 35a–b is devoted to aggadic discussion, and contains biographical details about Judah ha-Nasi and his nephew Ḥ iyya, and, like the Babylonian Talmud, expatiates on the virtues of Ereẓ Israel. In the Babylonian Talmud the discussions of miggo which play a significant role in the Jewish law of *evidence (chapter 2) are of particular halakhic interest, as are the references to the takkanot of Usha (49b–50a). Some of the aggadic passages to the Babylonian Gemara are of great beauty. They include accounts of rabbis dancing and singing at wedding festivities in fulfillment of the precept of gladdening bride and bridegroom (16b–17a; see also Ber. 6b); of the romance of R. Akiva (then a shepherd) with the daughter of Kalba Savua (62b–63a); Rabban Gamaliel’s example of simplicity in burial (8b); and the description of Judah ha-Nasi’s death and burial (103b–104a). Taking up the last Mishnah’s allusion to the su-

KEVER AVOT (Heb. ‫“ ; ֶק ֶבר ָאבוֹ ת‬grave of the fathers”), the custom of visiting the graveside of parents or close relatives and praying there. The theme of the prayers is peaceful eternal rest for the departed and an invocation for God’s aid to the living on the basis of the pious deeds of the dead performed in their lifetime. Judaism did not encourage “praying to the dead” and the custom of kever avot was, therefore, limited to special occasions; the day of the *Yahrzeit, the eve of Rosh Ḥ odesh especially that of the month of Elul, and in various Ashkenazi

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

99

Bibliography: Epstein, Tanna’im index; Ḥ . Albeck, Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Seder Nashim (1954), 77–87; A. Weiss, Hithavvut haTalmud bi-Shelemuto (1943), index. [Arnost Zvi Ehrman]

KETURAH (Heb. ‫) ְקטו ָּרה‬, a wife (Gen. 25:1) or concubine of Abraham (cf. 25:6; I Chron. 1:32). She bore him six sons (Gen. 25:2; I Chron. 1:32), the most prominent of these being *Midian. All these names are eponyms of peoples and locales. These children complete the fulfillment of the promise that Abraham would be the father of many nations (Gen. 17:5). Abraham is said to have given them gifts and to have sent them away from his son Isaac eastward, to the land of the East (Gen. 25:6). The text emphasizes that Abraham was still living when he sent Keturah’s sons away in order to show that they had no claims to rival Isaac. The peoples and locales Sheba, Dedan, Ephah, Midian, and Medan are mentioned in connection with ancient international trade, especially in spices, gold, and precious stones which were brought from southern Arabia (Isa. 60:6; Ezek. 27:15, 20, 22; cf. Gen. 37:25, 28, 36). Given that these locales were on the incense route, it is probable that the writer of the account named Abraham’s wife Keturah to connect her with the word ketoret (qeṭ oret, ‫ ְקט ֶֹרת‬, “incense”), of which a by-form ketorah (qeṭ orah, ‫ ) ְקטוֹ ָרה‬occurs in Deuteronomy 33:10. [Israel Eph’al / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]

In the Aggadah Keturah is identified with Hagar. The connection with incense (see above) is that her good deeds gave off a fragrance like incense; or that she combined (kitrah) in herself piety and nobility (Gen. R. 61:4). She was a daughter of Japheth (Yal. Reub. Gen. 26:2, 36c). Bibliography: E. Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstämme (1906), 312–22; J.A. Montgomery, Arabia and the Bible (1934), 42–45. IN THE AGGADAH: Ginzberg, Legends, index; I. Ḥ asida, Ishei ha-Tanakh (1964), 375. Add. Bibliography: N. Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary Genesis (1989), 171–73; E. Knauf, in: ABD, 4:31.

keyserling, leon H.

communities also the Ninth of *Av in the afternoon (Isserles to Sh. Ar., Oḥ 459:10 and 481:4). It was also customary to visit the graveside of pious individuals so that “the departed will intercede for mercy on behalf of the living” (Ta’an. 16a). It was related that Caleb visited Hebron and prostrated himself upon the graves of the patriarchs, saying to them, “My fathers, pray on my behalf that I may be delivered from the plan of the spies” (Sot. 34b). According to the Midrash, Jacob buried Rachel on the way to Ephrath near Bethlehem so that she could later pray for her children as they passed by her grave on the way to the Babylonian exile (Gen. 35:19; Jer. 31:15). This practice was particularly stressed by the Ḥ asidim who considered the earth above the final resting places of their rabbis as holy as the Land of Israel. Rooms known as ohalim were constructed above their graves, and Ḥ asidim gathered there to pray on the Yahrzeit or whenever they desired the heavenly intervention of the departed rabbis. Those who opposed the Ḥ asidim, however, discouraged these practices. It was related that R. *Elijah b. Solomon of Vilna even regretted the one time he visited his mother’s grave. R. Ḥ ayyim *Volozhin reportedly left instructions that his disciples were not to visit his final resting place. Likewise, R. Ḥ ayyim *Soloveichik of Brest-Litovsk never visited the graves of his parents. See: *Av the Ninth, *Cemetery, *Hillula, *Holy Places, *Lag ba-Omer, *Mourning Customs. Bibliography: Aaron Wertheim, Hilkhot va-Halikhot baḤ asidut, 226f.; Harry Rabinowicz, A Guide to Life, 99f.

KEYSERLING, LEON H. (1908–1987), U.S. economist. Born in Charleston (South Carolina), after a short period of teaching at Columbia University Keyserling became, in 1933, Legislative Assistant to Senator Robert F. Wagner. He then served as a consultant to numerous Senate committees on banking, taxation, monetary policy, public works, housing, labor relations, social security, and employment. Under the Truman administration he was chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers. He was frequently consulted by Israel government agencies. Keyserling’s main economic interests were the fields of employment and production, and his numerous publications included The Federal Budget and the General Welfare (1959); Food and Freedom (1960); Poverty and Deprivation in the United States (1962); Progress and Poverty (1964); and Role of Wages in a Great Society (1966). His wife, MARY DUBLIN KEYSERLING (1900–1997), who was born in New York City, was a professional economist, connected with federal agencies in the United States. [Joachim O. Ronall]

KEẒ AẒ AH (Heb. ‫“ ; ְק ָצ ָצה‬a severing of connections,” lit. “cutting-off ”), a technical term used in the Talmud for a ceremony, whereby a family severs its connection with one of its members who marries a person beneath his social rank (Ket. 28b), or when one sells part of his estate (TJ, Kid. 1:5, 60c). In both of these instances the keẓ aẓ ah acts as a kind of publicity for

100

the act done. It would seem from the Jerusalem Talmud that the keẓ aẓ ah was at one time a form of kinyan (“act of possession”), but even in early times it fell, as such, into disuse. The Talmud gives the following description of the keẓ aẓ ah. “How is the keẓ aẓ ah performed? If one of the brothers married a woman unsuitable for him, members of the family come and bring a barrel filled with fruit and break it in the town square, saying, ‘O brethren of the House of Israel, give ear, our brother so-and-so has married an unsuitable woman and we are afraid lest his seed mingle with our seed. Come and take yourselves a sign for the generations [which are to come], that his seed mingle not with our seed’“ (Ket. 28b). A similar keẓ aẓ ah took place when the renegade divorced his unsuitable mate, or when the estate which had been sold was repurchased (TJ, ibid.). Bibliography: Freund, in: Festschrift A. Schwarz (1917), 179f.; Krauss, Tal Arch, 2 (1911), 33; 3 (1912), 188. [Abraham Hirsch Rabinowitz]

KHALAẒ , JUDAH BEN ABRAHAM (d. before 1537), rabbi and kabbalist from Castile, Spain. In 1477 Judah fled from antiJewish excesses in his native town and went to Granada, where he remained for five years, acting as a teacher. From there he proceeded to Malaga, where he spent another four years in a similar capacity. In 1486 he arrived in Honain, from where he proceeded to Tlemcen, Algeria, where he was resident tutor to the son of the wealthy Joseph b. Sidon. There he wrote Mesi’aḥ Illemim, on Rashi’s Bible commentary and Sefer haMusar (also called Sefer ha-Mefo’ar, Constantinople, 1537), an ethical work with both rational and kabbalistic expositions, which is essentially an adaptation of the Menorat ha-Ma’or of Israel *Al-Nakawa. In his work, Judah interprets kabbalistic explanations of the commandments and prayers by his relative Moses b. Eleazar Khalaẓ . Judah is probably the author of Maggid Mishneh (a commentary on the laws of sheḥ itah of *Maimonides) published in Zevaḥ im Shelamim by Abraham Ankawa (Leghorn, 1858). He also wrote an introduction to the Talmud, containing 58 rules of talmudic methodology (published by M. Herschler, in: Sinai, 55 (1964), 25–36). A work on the Exodus, Pi Yehudah, is still in manuscript. JUDAH BEN ABRAHAM HA-KOHEN KHALAZ, who lived in the 16t–17t century, was a member of the same family and according to some the grandson of Judah. He studied under Solomon b. Ẓ emaḥ Duran II, to whom he dedicated a laudatory poem published in Duran’s Ḥ eshek Shelomo (Venice, 1623). Bibliography: A. Neubauer, in: REJ, 5 (1882), 47–52; M. Steinschneider, in: JQR, 11 (1899), 125; Israel al-Nakawa, Menorat haMa’or ed. by H.G. Enelow, 3 (1931), 56 (introd.); S. Wiener, Kohelet Moshe (1893–1918), 405, no. 3377. [Abraham David]

KHALYASTRE (Yid. “The Gang”), post-World War I Warsaw group of Yiddish expressionist and futurist poets. It received its title from Hillel *Zeitlin, editor of the influential Warsaw daily Moment, who used the term in a derogatory sense beENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kharj and jizya

cause the slogans and practices of the group’s members outraged public opinion in their struggle against realism in art. These writers were led by Peretz *Markish, Uri Zvi *Greenberg, and Melech *Ravitch. Accepting Zeitlin’s designation as a badge of honor, they termed their short-lived literary review Khalyastre. The first issue appeared in Warsaw in 1922 under the editorship of Markish and I.J. *Singer. The second, final, issue appeared in Paris two years later, under the editorship of Markish and O. *Warszawski, with illustrations by Marc *Chagall. Contributors also included D. *Hofstein, I. *Kipnis, M. Khashchevatsky, and Israel Stern. Not all of these writers were in sympathy with the flamboyant futurism of the Khalyastre, but they were impressed by the irrepressible vitality of the lyric triumvirate. Ravitch’s Nakete Lider (“Naked Songs,” 1921), Greenberg’s Mefisto (1922), and Markish’s Di Kupe (“The Mound,” 1922) were among the best products of the Khalyastre. The climax of the group’s striving was reached in the issues of Albatros (edited by Greenberg in Warsaw, 1922, and in Berlin, 1923), a periodical which proclaimed itself as the organ of extreme individualism in poetry. It advocated exaltation, renovation, and revolution of the spirit. It set out to fragment the language of the classical masters and to rebuild Yiddish anew. It preferred rhythmic tautness and explosiveness to rounded, melodious verses. Khalyastre came to an end with the dispersal of many of its leading figures: Markish to Soviet Russia, Greenberg to Ereẓ Israel in 1925, and Ravitch to Australia. The journal was endowed with a kind of second life with the publication of a French translation of its two issues, including the original illustrations and an exhaustive critical apparatus: Rachel Ertel, Khaliastra: La Bande (1989).

ordered an inn (khān) to be built there. There are remnants of this inn with Arabic transcriptions and architectural fragments. Almost all the population was Muslim, except for 316 Christians. The 1931 census indicated 3,811 inhabitants in Khān Yūnis (and another 3,440 then living in its vicinity); among these were three Jews and 40 Christians. In 1944, the population figure stood at 11,220. Before 1948, Jewish institutions and private persons repeatedly attempted to buy holdings, particularly Jiftlik (i.e., lands in public ownership), but legal difficulties precluded the final transfer. In 1948, the town was in the Gaza Strip, which remained under Egyptian rule. It was briefly in Israeli hands after the Sinai Campaign in 1956 and again from the Six-Day War of 1967. In 1994 it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the *Palestinian Authority. Its economy was based almost exclusively on farming (citrus groves, date palms, other fruits, vegetables, and irrigated and unirrigated field crops). In 1967 its population was 52,997 inhabitants, nearly half (23,475) living in refugee camps. By 1997 its population had reached 123,056, nearly two-thirds of whom were refugees. A stronghold of the Hamas terrorist organization, Khān Yūnis was hit by Israeli forces during the al-Aqsa Intifada (see *Israel, State of: Historical Survey) and buildings have been razed after providing cover for terrorists firing at Israeli settlements in *Gush Katif. [Efraim Orni]

KHĀN YŪNIS, town 14 mi. (23 km.) S.W. of Gaza. This may be the town ʾΙήνυσος which Herodotus lists among the Philistine towns (3:5). During the period of *Mamluk rule, Khān Yūnis served as an important market for the caravan trade between Ereẓ Israel and *Egypt. At that time the sultan Barqūq

KHARĀJ AND JIZYA, Arabic-Turkish for tribute or remuneration in general which later came to mean land tax and poll tax, respectively. According to the constitution of the Muslim state, as conceived by the legislators, the payment of the poll tax by the non-Muslim gives him the right to live within the state. Many times the jizya is named jilya or aljavali. Although the jizya is mentioned in the *Koran (Sura 9:29), the poll tax probably was a continuation of the policies of the Persian and Byzantine empires. In Sassanid *Persia all subjects, with the exception of the aristocracy, had to pay a poll tax according to their wealth. The poll tax in the various provinces of the Byzantine empire was not collected in the same way and when the Arabs conquered the lands of the Fertile Crescent, they concluded treaties with certain towns and districts, determining lump sums to be paid to them and to be collected by local notables. Therefore, the sources of the early period of Muslim rule reveal a bewildering confusion. Kharāj (Sura 23:74) and jizya were apparently used interchangeably in various regions, reflecting the lack of uniform fiscal systems. Under the later *Umayyads, from Omar II (717–720), the authorities began to distinguish between the kharāj, the land tax to be paid by most landholders, and the jizya, the poll tax to be paid by non-Muslims. Under the first *Abbasids, at the end of the eighth century, the Muslim lawyers fixed the rules of the jizya. According to the precepts of Abū Ḥ anīfa, which were taken over by most jurists, the poor had to pay one dinar per year; the middle class, two; and the rich, four. Women, children, old men, the sick, the mentally ill, and those without any income were to be exempt. They also established that the tax

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

101

[Sol Liptzin / Alan Astro (2nd ed.)]

KHANAQIN (Khaniqin, Khanikin), town in Diyāla province of E. Iraq; on the ancient Baghdad-Hamadan road, N.E. of Baghdad. In the middle of the 19t century there were about 20 Jewish families residing in Khanaqin; a century later the Jewish community numbered 700 people, most of whom were Arabic-speaking – about a quarter of them spoke Mountain Aramaic. The Jews were cloth and iron merchants, shopkeepers, itinerant money changers, innkeepers, etc. In 1911 the *Alliance Israélite Universelle established a coeducational school in the town which had an attendance of 181 pupils. In the 1920s Zionist activities were introduced. In August 1949, the police arrested the head of the community, accusing him of organizing an illegal Zionist organization; many other Jews were arrested at the same time. In the early 1950s the community left Khanaqin for Israel. Bibliography: A. Ben-Jacob, Yehudei Bavel (1965), 317. [Abraham Haim]

kharj and jizya

should be paid at the beginning of the lunar (Muslim) year. The majority of the Muslim jurists thought jizya as a punishment, a means to degrade the non-Muslims. Both Arabic reports referring to the period of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs, and Judeo-Arabic documents from the 11t century show that the authorities used very harsh methods in collecting the jizya, imposing it even on those exempt from paying by virtue of the sharīʿa (the canon law of Islam). Under the first caliphs the punishment of those who had not paid the jizya consisted of pouring oil on their heads and exposing them to the sun. Many extant *Genizah letters state that the collectors imposed the tax on children and demanded it for the dead. As the family was held responsible for the payment of the jizya by all its members, it sometimes became a burden and many went into hiding in order to escape imprisonment. For example there is a Responsum by *Maimonides from another document, written in 1095, about a father paying the jizya for his two sons, 13 and 17 years old. From another document, written around 1095, it seems that the tax was due from the age of nine. Even foreigners and transients were compelled to pay the poll tax; hence, nobody dared travel without a certificate of payment (barāʾa). Everyone paid where he was registered as resident. These documents also prove that the non-Muslims had to pay the jizya in advance (i.e., some time before the beginning of the Muslim year). The Jews in the Muslim territories did not try to ask exemption from the jizya, because they wanted to be protected. The stability of this tax gave the Jews stable security. There is a famous legend from the tenth century about the Jewish banker *Natira, who objected to the idea of an Abbasid caliph to exempt the Jews from paying jizya. The leaders of Egypt in the *Fatimid period were requested many times by poor people to help them out of difficulties incurred with the Muslim jizya collectors. Since the payment of the jizya was considered a sign of humiliation, Muslim lawyers insisted that it be paid in person. Such was the practice in 12t- and 13t-century Iraq and in Fatimid and *Ayyubid *Egypt. Sometimes the authorities made agreements with local communities, fixing a lump sum to be paid regardless of the number of taxpayers. Several extant Genizah letters point to the fact that the Jews in *Jerusalem in the 11t century paid the jizya as a fixed sum; the Italian rabbi Obadiah di *Bertinoro presents a similar situation in Jerusalem in the second half of the 15t century. In Ottoman Turkey the method of collecting the jizya (called kharāj) underwent several changes. At the end of the 15t century it was paid individually, but in later agreements, communities apparently would pay a lump sum (maḳ ṭ ūʿ). A letter written c. 1500 points out that the Jews of *Aleppo were arrested by the *Mamluk ruler because they could not pay the high jizya following a very difficult winter in which their economic life had declined. In the second half of the 16t century the Jews of Jerusalem, like the local Christians, paid personal jizya through the community. The community had to pay the Ottoman authorities a sum of money for jizya according to a list of Jews which was prepared during the censuses. That list was the

basis for the annual jizya payment, and everyone paid it for the male members of his family (hane). A law promulgated in 1691 provided for the reestablishment of the old system of individual payment. The new law was acted upon in Ereẓ Israel. In any case, it is clear that the leaders of Jewish communities in various Muslim lands (or in the confederations of the communities) were not responsible for the payment of the jizya. The rates of the jizya varied throughout and usually did not correspond to those fixed by the sharīʿa law. Generally, Jews from poor communities paid a low rate of jizya. In Egypt during the reign of the caliphs, all non-Muslims paid two dinars per year. Ibn Mammātī stated that under the *Ayyubids the *dhimmīs paid according to three rates; the rich paid 4.16 dinar; the middle class, 2.08; and the poor, 1.59. At the beginning of *Mamluk rule the rate of the poll tax was doubled. At the end of the 14t century, however, the highest rate amounted to one dinar and the lowest to 0.4 dinar. In 1412 the Egyptian government once more decided to levy the poll tax according to the rates fixed in the sharīʿa law, i.e., 1, 2, and 4 dinars. The accounts of Italian Jews who visited or settled in Ereẓ Israel in the late 15t century indicate a lower rate. According to their reports the (uniform) rate of the jizya would have been between one and two ducats. In Ottoman Turkey the rate was relatively low, in comparison with the rates fixed in the sharīʿa. In most provinces during the 17t century it was collected at a uniform rate, from 25 to 50 akçe, whereas in the provinces conquered from the Mamluks it reached up to 80 akçe (60–70 akçe equaled the value of one silver piece). In addition to these rates, all non-Muslims had to pay a collection fee. In the 18t century the Jews continued to pay jizya individually. In the *Ottoman Empire men paid the jizya until they were 60 or 65 years old. In the list of jizya taxpayers in Ruschuk in the year 1831, many children 12 years old and even younger were included. After the conquest of *Istanbul in 1453 the Ottomans determined a total assessment for the Jewish community as a whole and submitted it to the community representative. In the 16t century the secular leaders of every congregation apportioned its share among its individual members. In the second half of the 16t century all Jews paid the jizya according to the lowest rate: 80–90 akçe. The tax was sent to the Central Treasury in Istanbul, but the jizya of 85 Jews was sent to the Wakf of the Dome of the Rock. Throughout this century the government explored the jizya lists and requested the *Jerusalem community to pay the real jizya. The Jews often complained about these lists, especially in times when the community was in steep decline. They also complained frequently about the authorities oppressing them and forcing them to pay a high rate of the poll tax. In addition, there were many complaints about forcing the Jewish pilgrims to pay this tax. The Grand Vezir Sinan Pasha issued an order in 1586/7 to examine the subject of the jizya of the Jews and to bring him a list of Jews who had to pay this tax. A special official was sent from Istanbul to make enquiries about the Jews evading the Jizya. In the Muslim court of Jerusalem and in the responsa literature many documents deal with these difficulties. Few lists of poll

102

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kharj and jizya

tax taxpayers in Jerusalem and *Hebron have survived. These together cover the course of 400 years. For example, we can point to a list of 400 Jerusalem Jews who paid the jizya during 1760–1763. In the year 1762 only 31 persons paid the high rate (evla) of jizya, 123 persons paid the medium rate (evsat), and 195 persons paid the low rate (edna). Women were exempted from this tax, but rich widows who had inherited land from their husbands were listed and paid the jizya. In the 18t century Rabbi Raphael Shelomo Laniado of Aleppo wrote a halakhic decision that persons who could not pay the jizya could pay it from their charity money (maʿaser kesafim), “because it is like a ransom mitzvah.” He meant that everyone who did not pay the poll tax was arrested by the Ottoman authorities. Until the 19t century this tax in Aleppo was personal, but it was the duty of the community to collect the money from its members, and the leaders of the community were responsible for the sum of the requested tax. In 1672, 380 Jewish residents of Aleppo paid jizya. Under the Safavid government in *Persia the nasi of *Isfahan was responsible for collecting the jizya and delivering it to the local officials. Under *Reza Shah this tax was cancelled. In Ruschuk the jizya was collective. In 1831/2, 15 Jews paid a total of 420 grossos, 53 paid 1,272 grossos and 36 paid together 432 grossos. Under the reign of Sultan Bayezid II in 1510–1511 the Ottomans used the monies raised by the poll tax in *Salonika and its environs for the purchase of textiles to outfit the Janissary corps. The Ottoman registry books from the reign of *Suleiman the Magnificent indicate tax payments according to the congregations of the community. But the tax total shown in the registry books was a tally for all the Jews of Salonika, without an itemization by congregation. Rabbi Moses Almosnino wrote in 1568 that he had succeeded in his mission to Istanbul in modifying the poll-tax procedures for the Jews of Salonika. Undoubtedly the poll tax was a burden to the poor for more than one thousand years. Therefore, the Jewish communities collectively raised money to pay the tax, the poor contributing only a small amount. Many documents referring to these drives are extant in the Cairo Genizah. These drives helped prevent the compulsory payment of the poll tax from becoming a reason for conversion to *Islam, as it had been for Christians. In urgent cases the local leaders of the communities regarded the payment of the jizya for the poor as a holy obligation and a pious deed. For example, there are letters given by the nagid Abraham Maimonides dealing with the payments in place of the poor living in Fustat. The poll tax continued to be levied in the Ottoman Empire until the hatti-sherif (the order of the Sultan) in 1856, when the jizya was abolished by law and non-Muslims were required to pay a tax exempting them from military service (bedel i-askeri). This tax continued to be levied until the Young Turk Revolution, when military service was imposed upon non-Muslims (1909). In Egypt the jizya was abolished by the Napoleonic regime that briefly ruled in Egypt and later in 1855 by Saʿid Pasha. During the Ottoman era it was stipulated that the communities must guarantee the jizya payment for merchants away from

the town. In many Jewish communities the family (hane) paid the jizya. There are numerous censuses from the Ottoman period which give the number of the families and the number of bachelors who paid this tax in many communities. The jizya taxpayers were males aged 15–60. We have many documents from the Ottoman period dealing with disputes between rich and poor, in the communities where the jizya was collective. In other communities the jizya was personal. The community of Istanbul in 1771/2 had a list of taxes paid by it to the state; it suggests that the community had to pay the jizya for 1,200 impoverished taxpayers who could not meet their tax obligations to the government. In Ottoman Egypt the government demanded the jizya from the Jewish community collectively and the Jewish leaders collected the money from the taxpayers according to their economic status, It is possible that in the later years of the 17t century Egyptian communities changed this system and adopted a new jizya that was personal and not collective. In the 18t century the rich Jews in Egypt paid 440 para every year, the middle class community members paid 220 para, and the poor paid 110 para. Other documents give other rates of jizya: 420, 270 and 100 paras, respectively. In Ottoman Egypt the jizya money was sent by the Ottoman government to the Ulema and other pious Muslims in Egypt. In some cities, such as Hebron, the revenues of the jizya were earmarked for Muslim religious institutions. The 17t-century historian Joseph *Sambari writes that “…in the time of Mehmed Gazi Pasha the Oriental Jews, named al-Masharika, began to pay the kharāj to the Sherif Ali Savis, because [until that time] they had an old order from the Sultan of that time exempting them and their descendants from kharāj, and that minhag has been cancelled.” The Jews did not object to the jizya, but there were certain Jews under Islam who were granted exemption from the jizya. A few such cases occur in *Genizah letters related to Egypt, and there are documents about Jewish communities that paid the tax burden for their scholarly officials. This was an internal arrangement. There seem to have been special arrangements in the Ottoman communities exempting Torah scholars holding recognized positions from all tax obligations, including the jizya. The communities undertook these payments. Scholars who had no recognized positions were obliged to make jizya payments during most of the 16t century, in spite of the regulation of the *nagid R. Issac Hacohen Solal in Jerusalem at the beginning of that century, which was also adopted in *Safed. But from 1535 until the end of the 16t century the scholars in Safed paid it gradually. While in Jerusalem during the 16t century the payments were fixed and uniform, in Safed they were progressive until the mid-1560s, a fact which caused many Jews to settle in Safed, and from then on they were apparently made in full. About 1560 Rabbi David Ibn Zimra (Radbaz) decided to demand jizya from the community scholars of Jerusalem. At the end of the 16t century Rabbi Moshe Alshekh urged the establishment of yearly support from the communities of *Venice and Istanbul for paying the jizya of 25 Safed Jewish residents.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

103

kharasch, morris selig

In Egypt Rabbi Mordechai Halevi and the other spiritual leaders of Cairo in the 17t century issued a regulation exempting scholars who did not work but rather studied Torah all day from paying jizya. The Jewish communities in the Ottoman Empire tried to prevent new jizya censuses as well as government inquiries about this tax. Many Jews left the city and hid when Ottoman officials came to write new lists of jizya taxpayers. Generally, the number of persons in the jizya lists is incorrect and probably the real number of community members was higher. Many communities arranged special jizya record books. Sometimes there were congregations (synagogues, kehalim) in the community that paid the Ottoman authorities the jizya of their members by themselves and were listed in the Ottoman records as independent communities. Such registration existed in 16t century in Salonika and Safed. The francos active especially in the great communities of the Ottoman empire were exempted from jizya, but there were francos who had been settled in the Ottoman Empire for 10 years and were compelled to pay the jizya according to the Ottoman law. In Africa, especially in Arab sources, the term jāliya (plur: jawālī) is used many times in place of the term jizya. The meaning of jaliya is exile. We know nothing concerning its collection, but we may suppose that it was collected by the Jewish authorities together with other taxes and charges to which the members of the community were liable, the amounts due to the government being set apart from the general collection. The Tunisian constitution of 1857 contains a reference to the jizya. Exemption from personal taxes is mentioned in the *capitulations concluded in the second half of the 19t century between *Morocco and European countries; therefore, the poll tax must have remained in force there. In the emirate of *Bukhara the jizya was collected from the Jews, but not from the Russian Christians. This and other forms of discrimination continued even after Bukhara had become a Russian protectorate. Complaints about the existence of a poll tax do not occur but at times the collection methods were a source of hardship to the non-Muslim populations. The Jews of *Tripoli (Libya) paid the bedeli-askari until the year 1901. Bibliography: Løkkegaard, Islamic Taxation (1950), chapter 6; D.C. Dennett, Conversion and the Poll-Tax in Early Islam (1950); A. Fattal, Statut légal des non-musulmans en pays d’Islam (1958), chapter 7; S.D. Goitein, in: Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 6 (1963), 278–95; Ashtor, Toledot, 2 (1951), 259–316; 3 (1970), 11–12, 85, 102, 121; P.K. Hitti, History of the Arabs (19679), 171. Add. Bibliography: H. Inalcik, “Djizya,” in: EIS2, 3 (1965), 146–48; M. Gil, Documents of the Jewish Pious Foundations from the Cairo Geniza (1970), index; A. Cohen, Palestine in the 18t Century (1973), 249–56; S.D. Goitein, Mediterranean Society, The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza, 1–3 (1967, 1971, 1978), index; A. Shochet, in: Sefunot, 11 (1971–1978). 301–8; S.J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, (1977), 1, 84, 95, 96, 97, 100, 104, 128; M. Benayahu, in: Sefunot, 14 (1971–78), 92; H.Z. Hirschberg, A History of the Jews in North Africa, 1 (1974), 117, 120, 132, 207, 288, 199, 267–69; A. Cohen and B. Lewis, Population and Revenue in the Towns of Palestine in the Sixteenth Century (1978), 28–75, 155–69; A. Schochet, in: Cathedra, 13 (1979), 6–9, 15,

104

30–37; M.R. Cohen, The Jewish Self-Government in Medieval Egypt: (1980), 217, 260, 320; M.A. Epstein, The Ottoman Jewish Communities and their Role in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (1980), 62, 66, 72, 90, 111, 122, 134f, 178. 184f., 191, 195; M. Kunt, in: B. Braude and B. Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman Empire, 1 (1982), 58; J.R. Hacker, in: ibid. (1982), 117–26; F. Ahmad, in: ibid., 398, 447; H. Gerber, Yehudei ha-Imperya ha-Otmanit ba-Me’ot ha-Shesh Esre veha-Sheva-Esre, Ḥ evrah ve-Kalkalah (1983), 27, 36–37, 122–26, 130–31; 40–43, 48, 105, 109, 117–19, A. Cohen, Jewish Life Under Islam (1984), index; A. Shmuelevitz, The Jews of the Ottoman Empire in the Late Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (1984); J. Hacker, in: Shalem, 4 (1984), 63–117; M. Rozen, Ha-Kehillah ha-Yehudit bi-Yrushalayim ba-Me’ah ha-Sheva-Esre (1985), index. S. Bar Asher, in: S. Ettinger (ed.), Toledot ha-Yehudim be-Arẓ ot ha-Islam, 1 (1981), 145; 2 (1986), 333–39; L. Bornstein-Makovetsky, in: Jacob M. Landau (ed.), Toledot Yehudei Mitzrayim ba-Tekufah ha-Otmanit (1517–1914) (1988), 131, 181–182, 188; M. Winter, ibid., 387, 390–92, 404; Rozan, ibid., 423–25, 443, 458–59; M. Zand, in: Pe’amim, 35 (1988), 57–59; B. Masters, The Origins of Western Economic Dominance in the Middle East: Mercantalism and the Islamic Economy in Aleppo, 1600–1750 (1988), 38, 89, 107 no. 49, 127; A. Marcus, The Middle East on the Eve of Modernity: Aleppo in the Eighteenth Century, (1989), 148, 338; M. Gil, A History of Palestine 634–1099 (1992), 242, 245, 262, 761; A. Levy, The Sephardim in the Ottoman Empire (1992), 15, 59, 92, 144; A. Cohen, Yehudim be-Veit ha-Mishpat ha-Muslemi (1993), 37–52, 70–84; M. Rozen, in: A. Levy (ed.), The Jews of the Ottoman Empire (1994), 254–62; Y. Barnai, in: Cathedra, 72 (1994), 135–68; M.R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross, The Jews in the Middle Ages (1994), index; M. Ben- Sasson, Ẓ emiḥ at ha-Kehillah ha-Yehudit be-Arẓ ot ha-Islam (1996), 354, 386–88, 398; N. Gruenhaus, Ha-Misuy ba-Kehillah ha-Yehudit be-Izmir ba-Me’ot ha-Sheva-Esre ve-ha-Shemone-Esre (1997), 57–59; I. Abramski-Bligh (ed.), Pinkas ha-Kehillot: Libya,Tunisia (1997); Y. Avrahami, Pinkas ha-Kehillah ha-Yehudit Portugezit be-Tunis (1997), 27–28; B. Rivlin (ed.), Pinkas ha-Kehillot: Yavan (1999); A. David, To Come to the Land: Immigration and Settlement in the 16t Century Eretz Israel (1999), index; J.R. Hacker, in: Shalem, 7 (2002), 133–50; Y. Barnai, ibid. (2002), 199–205; M. Rozen, A History of the Jewish Community in Istanbul: The Formative Years, 1453–1566 (2002), 26–27; D. Schroeter, in: A. Levy (ed.), Jews, Turks, Ottomans (2002), 90, 92, 99; Y. Harel, Bi-Sefinot shel Esh La-Ma’arav, Temurot Be-Yahadut Surya bi-Tekufat haReformot ha-Otmaniyyot 1840–1880 (2003), 103, 173–74; M. Gil, The Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages (2004), 166, 172, 173, 252, 268, 307, 324, 326, 353, 363; A. Levy (ed.), Jews, Turks, Ottomans (2002), 6, 90–92, 99, 109; E. Alshech, in: Islamic Law and Society, 10 (2003), 348–75; Z. Keren, Kehillat Yehudei Ruschuk, 1788–1878 (2005), 56, 77, 84, 95–96, 102, 106, 130–32, 134, 143–44. [Eliyahu Ashtor / Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky (2nd ed.)]

KHARASCH, MORRIS SELIG (1895–1957), organic chemist. Kharasch was born in Kremenets, Ukraine, and educated in the U.S. He was professor at the University of Maryland (1922–28) and at the University of Chicago from 1930; he was also a consultant to the U.S. Department of Agriculture from 1926. His field of research included the electronic structure and physical properties of organic compounds, free radicals, chain reactions, hydro-peroxides, and ergot. KHARIK, IZI (Yitskhok; 1898–1937), Soviet Yiddish poet. Born in Zembin, Belorussia, he began publishing Yiddish po-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kharkov

etry in 1920. His talent and dedication to building socialism earned him an invitation to Moscow to study the arts. His literary career skyrocketed after he published his shtetl poems in the literary magazine Shtrom and his epic poem, “Minsker Blotes” (“Minsk Swamps”), which appeared in Nayerd (1925) and portrays the transformation of a shtetl during the Revolution. It was heralded as one of the first Yiddish works to depict Jewish life, as opposed to death, during the Civil War. After returning to Belorussia, Kharik published his first major collection of poems, Af der erd (“On the Land,” 1926), marking him as the Yiddish poet who best expressed the ambiguous relationship between Jewish tradition and modernity, between memory and imagination. He also began editing for the Minsk newspaper, Oktober. His most important contribution to Soviet Jewish literature, the pessimistic narrative poem “Mit Layb un Lebn” (“With Body and Soul,” 1928), portrays the life of the Soviet Jewish intelligentsia through the eyes of a young Jewish teacher whose grand hopes for rebuilding the shtetl are ultimately dashed. Reviewers nonetheless lauded Kharik for portraying “real Soviet life” and showing the remaking of Soviet society. In the 1930s, he became a member of the prestigious Belorussian Academy of Sciences, and his colleagues celebrated him in poetry readings, special book dedications, and other rites that conferred importance on Soviet writers. He became editor of the Minsk literary journal Shtern and, in 1932, put out his third important collection of poetry, Kaylekhdike Vokhn (“Week After Week”). In June 1937, at the peak of his career, he was arrested, and killed later that year, as part of the Great Purges that decimated the Soviet cultural elite. His work was not republished until the late 1950s after his rehabilitation following Stalin’s death. Bibliography: LNYL, 4 (1961), 382–6; E.H. Jeshurin, Dovid Hofshteyn, Izi Kharik, Itsik Fefer: Bibliografye (1962). Add. Bibliography: I. Howe and E. Greenberg (eds.), Ashes Out of Hope: Fiction by Soviet-Yiddish Writers (1977); Sh. Rozhansky (ed.), Dovid Hofshteyn, Izi Kharik, Itsik Fefer: Oysgeklibene Shriftn (1962); D. Shneer, Yiddish and the Creation of Soviet Jewish Culture, 1918–1930 (2004). [Elias Schulman / David Shneer (2nd ed.)]

KHARKOV, city in Ukraine. It was built as a fortress against the invasions of Crimean Tartars in the 16t century, and it was the headquarters of a Cossack brigade in the 18t. Kharkov was outside the *Pale of Settlement. Jewish merchants often attended the large fairs held there from the second half of the 18t century, however, and individual Jews even settled there without hindrance. In 1821 the authorities forbade Jews to enter the town, but, on the complaint of the local authorities that the order was harmful to the business of the fairs, Jewish merchants were again admitted in 1835. From 1859 Jews who were allowed to live outside the Pale of Settlement began to settle in Kharkov. In 1868 they were permitted to build a synagogue and nominate a community council. There were then 35 families of merchants and craftsmen. In that period there were 26 Jewish pupils studying at the local secondary school and university and 68 Jewish soldiers. By 1878 Jews numbered

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

2,625 (total population 83,507). When the fairs were held, some 3,000 Jews would visit the town. In the mid-1800s there was a Karaite community of 525 persons with a synagogue and cemetery. They dealt mostly in tobacco. Toward the end of the 19t century, many Jewish youths from the provinces of the Pale began to attend the University of Kharkov, and in 1886 the 414 Jewish students formed 28.3 of the student body. A *Bilu society was founded among the Jewish students there. The community numbered 11,013 (6.3 of the total population) in 1897. At that time there were three large Jewish banks, and many wholesale businesses with many trade connections abroad. Others lived from petty trade and crafts. The community opened a hospital and a soup kitchen for the needy. In 1880 the Goldfaden theatrical group performed there for a month. During World War I and the Civil War (1918–20) many Jews, expelled from their places of residence or escaping from the fighting zone or pogroms, took refuge in Kharkov. The pedagogic seminary of *Grodno and its teachers and pupils were transferred to Kharkov in this period. Kharkov became an important Jewish center. A Hebrew secondary school and popular Jewish university were established, and books and newspapers in Yiddish and Hebrew were published there. The conferences of He-Ḥ alutz (1920, 1922), the Socialist-Zionist Party (1920), and Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir (1923) were held in the town. A group of Hebrew writers was also active there. The consolidation of the Soviet regime marked the end of organized Jewish life, but the choice of Kharkov as capital of Ukraine from 1919 to 1934 and its general development resulted in a rapid increase in the Jewish population, which numbered 65,007 (17.2 of the total) in 1923, 81,138 in 1926, 115,811 in 1935, and 130,250 (total population 832,913) in 1939. The town was the center of the *Yevsektsiya’s activities in Ukraine. Several Yiddish Communist newspapers, including the daily Der Shtern (1925–41), and the journals Di Roite Welt (“The Red World”) and Sovetishe Literatur were published there. In 1925 the All-Ukrainian Jewish State Theater was opened, performing there until it was moved with the capital to Kiev in 1934. The Jewish State Theatre, Kharkov took its place. In the 1920s there existed Jewish sections in the court of law, the militia sectors, and the municipality. At the end of the 1920s there were four Yiddish schools with about 1,900 pupils, a teachers’ college, a vocational school for machine production (over 400 pupils), and a Jewish section at the journalism school. Holocaust and Modern Periods The Germans occupied Kharkov on October 24, 1941. Most of the city’s Jews succeeded in evacuating or fleeing the town. The commander of the 6t Army (quartered there and led by General von Paulus) ordered hostages taken, most of them Jews, and they were shot for every breach of martial law. In mid-November buildings in which German headquarters and organizations were housed were blown up, and 1,000 hostages, mostly Jews, were taken and executed. On December 14, 1941, the Jews were ordered to move in two days to barracks that

105

kharkov conference

housed workers of a machine and tractor factory in the city’s district 10. The barracks were without windows and doors and had no heating. No food was allowed and water only during limited hours. Many died of diseases and starvation. At the end of December 100 were killed. Between January 2 and 8 the ghetto was liquidated, and the Jews were murdered nearby in the Drobitski Yar (about 8 km. from town) – according to the Soviet Commission to Investigate Nazi Crimes, about 15,000 persons. Together with the hostages and Jews from hospitals and old-age homes, the number of victims was 21,685 Jews, according to German sources. Kharkov was liberated on August 23, 1943. Jewish settlement was renewed in Kharkov, and the Jewish population numbered 81,500 (9 of the total) in 1959, dropping to 62,800 in 1970. The last synagogue was closed down by the authorities in 1948–49. All subsequent attempts to obtain permission to organize a synagogue were unsuccessful, and the former synagogue was converted into a sports gymnasium. In 1957, 1958, and 1959 private prayer groups were dispersed on the High Holidays (New York Times, May 21, 1959). Several Torah scrolls were confiscated. In 1960 the minyanim were again dispersed and Jews were arrested for baking maẓ ẓ ah. In 1967 Jews attending private services on the High Holidays were beaten by the militia. The old cemetery was converted into a park. In 1970 Jews had their own section in the general cemetery, and kasher poultry was available. In the 1990s many Jews immigrated to Israel and the West. Bibliography: M. Osherowitch, Shtet un Shtetlekh in Ukraine, 2 (1948), 24–34; Dokumenty obviniayuť, 2 (1945), 307–12. [Yehuda Slutsky / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]

KHARKOV CONFERENCE, a consultation of the leading Zionists from the various parts of Russia convened at the beginning of November 1903 in order to organize the opposition to the *Uganda Scheme. When the Sixth Zionist Congress adopted *Herzl’s proposal to send a commission to investigate whether Uganda was suitable for Jewish settlement, a storm of protest was aroused in the Zionist Movement, especially among the Russian Zionists – the overwhelming majority of those who voted “no.” Menahem *Ussishkin, who did not attend the Congress because he was in Ereẓ Israel at the time, was the head of the opposition movement. Upon his return to Russia, he published a sharp open letter in the Zionist press against the Congress’ decision and the “diplomacy and exaggerated politization” of the Zionist Movement, stressing that the Congress had no right to adopt a resolution that constituted the abandonment of Zion. In reaction to this letter, Herzl accused Ussishkin (in the official Zionist Die *Welt, Oct. 30, 1903) of a breach of discipline and severely criticized his activities in Ereẓ Israel. At the beginning of November of that year, the Russian members of the Zionist General Council and their deputies (together numbering 15) met in Kharkov on the initiative of Ussishkin, who was the moving force at the conference, and demanded a condemnation of Herzl. The conference decided to oppose the Uganda scheme as a contradiction of the *Basle

106

Program and to present Herzl with an ultimatum under which he was to commit himself in writing to the following demands: not to propose in the future any territorial programs other than the settlement of Syria and Ereẓ Israel; to withdraw and dissolve the Uganda Scheme entirely by no later than the Seventh Congress, and to convene a special session of the General Council to discuss the matter prior to the dispatch of the commission to Uganda; and to embark immediately on practical settlement work in Ereẓ Israel. Should Herzl reject the ultimatum, another consultation would be convened to devise measures of opposition to the Zionist leadership, including withholding contributions to the Zionist Executive in Vienna, a publicity campaign, the dispatch of opposition propagandists to all Zionist centers in Europe and America, a convention of the opposition prior to the Seventh Zionist Congress, establishing an independent Zionist organization, appealing to world public opinion and before a British court against the rights of the “East African majority” (supporters of the Uganda Scheme) to the finances of the Zionist Organization-the *Jewish Colonial Trust and the *Jewish National Fund. *Z. Belkowsky, *V. Tiomkin, and *S. Rosenbaum were chosen as members of the delegation to present the ultimatum to Herzl with *J. Bernstein-Kogan as an alternate member. It was also decided that the transfer of funds to the Zionist treasury in Vienna should be suspended until the conclusion of negotiations with Herzl and that the money should be kept temporarily in Russia. The delegation arrived in Vienna on Dec. 31, 1903, but Herzl, who was gravely offended by the aggressive tone of the Kharkov resolutions, refused to receive it officially. He agreed, however, to meet with each of its members privately and invited them to attend the meeting of the Executive as guests after they had declared for the record that they did not come as emissaries and that they did not intend to deliver any ultimatum. In the meantime, the British government, under pressure from the English settlers in Uganda, withdrew its offer to the Zionist movement. As a result, a reconciliation took place between Herzl and the Russian Zionists on April 11, 1904. Bibliography: A. Bein, Theodor Herzl (Heb., 19627), 453–503; Th. Herzl, Complete Diaries, 5 (1960), index s.v. Kharkov; S. Schwarz, Ussishkin be-Iggerotav (1949), 79–87; J. Klausner, Ha-Oppoziẓ yah le-Herzl (1960), 231–49; M. Heymann, The Uganda Controversy, 1 (1970). [Yitzhak Maor]

KHAYBAR, the largest Jewish settlement in *Arabia in the time of *Muhammad, approximately 60 mi. (97 km.) from Medina. Khaybar is located on a very high mountainous plateau entirely composed of lava deposits, containing very fertile valleys that are, however, covered by malarial swamps; the Jews of Khaybar were thus forced toward the mountains, only going down into the valleys (during the day) in order to work their lands. They cultivated dates, grapes, vegetables, and grain, and raised sheep, cattle, camels, horses, and donkeys. They also engaged in spinning, weaving, and the manufacture ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

khaybar

of silk clothing, garments which were well-known in the entire Hejaz, and benefited from the caravan trade between Arabia, *Syria, and *Iraq and traded with Syria. The Arabs were not at that time capable of producing for themselves the tools, the weapons, the textiles, and the jewelry which they needed or coveted, and the Jews, being skillful artisans and drawn towards commerce, were in a position to supply these objects because they understood the art of manufacturing them or the means of importing them. The Jews provided the capital for commercial activities while the Arabs acted as intermediaries between them and the tribes of the interior. The Jews of Khaybar were well known for their diligence, wealth, and hospitality. During the night they would place beacons in the towers of their castles, guiding those who were lost to their houses, which remained open all night. The Jewish Banū *Naḍ īr of *Medina, who claimed to be descendants of Aaron the priest, owned lands in Khaybar and had castles, fortresses, and their own weapons there. After Muhammad expelled them from Medina in 625, their leaders moved to their estates in Khaybar in order to prepare for war against Muhammad and to recruit the aid of Arab tribes. In fact, they led those who fought against Muhammad, and the men of Khaybar, who had intermarried with them, treated them with respect and obeyed them. The settlements of Khaybar were concentrated around three centers – Naṭāt, Shiqq, and Katība – scattered over a wide area. The settlers engaged in the manufacture of metal implements for work and weapons such as battering rams and catapults, which they stored in their castles and even lent to Arab tribes. According to the sources, most of them written by Arabic chroniclers, they had 10,000 warriors but this number is probably very exaggerated. Muhammad’s war against the Jews of Khaybar (628) was very harsh. At first he sent disguised guests to the homes of the leaders of Banū Naḍ īr who then killed their hosts. Muhammad’s victory over the Jews of Khaybar, some of whom were held in esteem by the enemy, was also aided by the distance of the settlements and their castles from one another, the absence of coordination between the fighting forces, the death of the leader Sallām ibn Mishkam, and the treachery of a Jew who showed the Muslims the secret entrances to one of the fortresses. The castles of Khaybar had tunnels and passages which in wartime enabled the besieged to reach water sources outside the castles. Muhammad treated the Jews of Khaybar with cruelty, murdering Ḥ uyayy ibn Akhṭab, head of Banū Naḍ īr, in Medina. He ordered the son of the leader and the husband of his daughter Ṣ afiyya killed in Khaybar. He married Ṣ afiyya, who herself was taken captive, on the way from Khaybar to Medina. The sources emphasize her beauty, her faithfulness to Muhammad, and her privileges, which included the inheritance of her property by a relative and his uncle in Khaybar. Concerned that Khaybar would remain desolate and would not continue supplying its agricultural produce to the Hejaz, Muhammad and the Jews signed an agreement which allowed many of its inhabitants to remain on their lands, even

though the payment of half their crops to the conquerors undermined the economic position of the Jews of Khaybar. From a legal point of view the pact was defective, since it did not define the situation of the Jews and did not say whether they were to remain the owners of the soil which they were to cultivate. In later years Muslim jurists defined this settlement as land tenure with rent paid in produce. One version of this agreement was copied by Joseph *Sambari in the 17t century. According to Muslim sources, Muhammad returned to the Jews copies of the Torah seized during the siege, since he opposed desecrating them. After captives of war and slaves from other countries were brought to Khaybar and the people of Hejaz became more accustomed to agriculture, the caliph *Omar decided to expel the Jews of Khaybar in 642 under the pretense that before his death Muhammad had commanded that two religions could not exist simultaneously in the Hejaz. Contrary to the statements of Graetz, Dubnow, and others, however, not all the Jews of Khaybar were expelled by Omar. Those who had made special treaties and covenants with Muhammad, especially the members of the family of his wife Ṣ afiyya, were allowed to remain. Graetz’s theory about the wanderings of the Jews of Khaybar to Kufa on the Euphrates, where they influenced the center of the gaonate in Babylonia and served as an ethnic background for the growth of Karaism there, is basically incorrect. Some of the Jews of Khaybar settled in Wadi al-Qurā and *Tayma, but most of them settled in *Jericho. Among those exiled to Jericho was the son of the chief warrior of Khaybar, Ḥ ārith, who was the father of Zaynab, the woman credited with the attempt to poison Muhammad in revenge for the slaughter of her people. The Jews of Khaybar apparently spread out from Jericho along the Jordan Valley, reaching the Sānūr Valley in northern Samaria. This is indicated by the names Tell-Khaybar and Khirbat-Khaybar in that valley and an ancient Arab tradition about a Jewish king and princess who lived in these places. An Arabic source published by I. *Goldziher (REJ, 28 (1894), 83) quotes an Arabic account in which the Muslims express their astonishment that the Jewish women of Khaybar put on their most beautiful jewelry on the Day of Atonement. The Jews of Khaybar, like Jews in other parts of the Hejaz, are mentioned hundreds of years after the expulsion of some of them by Omar. At the end of the 11t century they still had possessions, lands, fields, and castles in the region of Katība, which was a region of Banū Naḍ īr in the time of Muhammad. The Jews of Wadi al-Qurā addressed questions about the cultivation of dates to R. Sherira and Hai Gaon in Babylonia. *Benjamin of Tudela (12t century) heard rumors, which are exaggerated, about the power of the Jews of Khaybar and Tayma, who were still addressing questions to the exilarchs in *Baghdad. He noted that the Jews of Khaybar were descendants of the Re’uben, Gad, and Menashe tribes and that they numbered 50,000, including scholars and war heroes who fought against their enemies. In the 11t and 12t centuries the Jews of Khaybar are mentioned in Egypt and Babylonia. In a letter from the gaon Solomon b. Judah writ-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

107

khazars

ten in Jerusalem around 1020, a certain Isaac from Wadi alQura is mentioned. This man deserted his family for four years, traveled to Egypt and returned “to his land,” that is, to Wadi al-Qura. Two *Genizah documents attest the settlement of Khaybar Jews in Tiberias during that period. According to Muslim tradition, the Jews of Khyabar were expelled in the days of Omar. They claimed in Tiberias to be Khayberis, and therefore exempt from tax, Great attention has been devoted by scholars to a letter from the Cairo Genizah, written in Arabic in Hebrew letters, to “Ḥ anina (or Ḥ abiba) and the people of Khaybar and Maqnā,” showering numerous privileges on them and promising their safety from harm by the Muslims for the sake of their cousin Ṣ afiyya; the letter, which is written on paper, is probably copied from one which had been written on leather, as was the case with the letters and treaties of Muhammad. Arabic sources attest that correspondence to Jews in the time of Muhammad was in Arabic in Hebrew letters. The letter, however, has been recognized by most scholars as a forgery, although there is disagreement as to whether its details are drawn from authentic treaties and historical facts and are copies of these sources. In any event, the letter was composed at the time of the caliph Al-Ḥ ākim bi-Amr Allah (ca. 1010) as a defense against persecutions, expropriation of property, and coercion to accept the Muslim faith in his time, not only in Egypt but in other parts of his rule and including Khaybar itself. An Arabic source explicitly states that “Khaybar Jews” are exempt from the decrees. A Genizah letter tells about the poet Yakhin who fled from *al-Mahalla (Egypt) when he was requested to pay the poll tax. The letter supposes that Yakhin was entitled to tax exemption because he was a Khayberi. In other Genizah letters from the 11t century there are references to persons called Ibn al-Khayberi. It seems to *Goitein that a distinction should be made between Jews who really emigrated from north Arabia and were called Hizajis, and the Khaybaris, who probably came to the West via Iraq and had no real connection with Khaibar. Gil also doubts whether those Jews claiming exemption and special status were in fact Khayberis. From the 16t century onward, when European travelers began to visit Arabia, rumors were spread about the presence of the Jews of Khaybar in the Hejaz, their bravery, their control of the roads to Mecca, and their collection of road taxes from pilgrims. Varthema, who traveled in Arabia during the early years of the 16t century, noted that in a locality between *Damascus and *Medina there lived between 4,000 and 5,000 Jews, but the orientalist Pirenne doubts this. David Hareuveni claimed in 1524 in Italy that he was the army general of the king Solomon from Habur (Khaybar) desert. During the 19t century these rumors encouraged some hardy, imaginative Jews to go out into the wilderness of Arabia in search of the “Sons of Rehab” (Khaybar) and the “Sons of Moses, Dan, and Asher.” Some of them died on the way and were not heard of again. Pirenne writes that in the mid-19t century, the Jews were in considerable numbers in that area. According to rumors, a few Khaybar Jews arrived in Palestine and appeared

108

in synagogues. Of special interest is the Muḥ amara family in the village of Yutah in the mountains south of Hebron, which traces its lineage to the Jews of Khaybar, as well as the family of the head of the deserted village of Hūj, near kibbutz Dorot, who was related to the descendants from Khaybar in Yutah. The old father of the Muḥ amara family settled in Yutah in the second half of the 18t century. G.M. Kressel wrote (in 2001) about the symbolic meaning amongst the Negev Bedouin population of Muhammad’s war against the Jews of Khaybar. Bibliography: I. Ben-Ze’ev, Ha-Yehudim ba-Arav (19572), index; H.Z. Hirschberg, Yisrael ba-Arav (1946), index; I. Ben Zvi, in: Keneset, 5 (1940), 281–302; J. Braslavsky, Le-Ḥ eker Arẓ enu (1954), 3–52 (English summaries: 3–4, English section); S.D. Goitein, in: KS, 9 (1932/33), 507–21; Caetani, in: Annali dell’ Islam, 2 (1905), 8–41; R. Leszynsky, Juden in Arabien zur Zeit Mohammeds (1910). add Bibliography: J. Pirenne, A la découverte de l’Arabie (1958), 33, 76, 215ff.; Ashtor (Strauss), Toledot, 2 (1953), 298–309; I. Ben-Zvi, She’ar Yashuv (1966), 370, 380, 415–23; B.Z. Dinur Israel ba-Golah, 2:2 (1959), 26–27, 169–170; 2:3 (1968), 424–25; M.A. Shaban, Islamic History, A New Interpretation (600–750) (1971), 10, 13; EIS2 (1978), 1137–43; Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, 2 (1971), 386, 611; 5 (1988), 603; M. Lecker, in: Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 5 (1984), 1–11; N. Dana, in: Moreshet Yisrael, 1 (2005), 88–99; M.R. Cohen, Under Crescent and Cross, The Jews in the Middle Ages (1994), index; M. Gil, A History of Palestine, 634–1099 (1992), index; M. Lecker, in: Pe’amim, 61 (1994), 6–15; S. Shtuber, Sefer Divrei Yosef le-Rabbi Yosef be-Rabbi Yiẓ ḥ ak Sambari (1994), 97, 293, 313; G.M. Kressel, in: Israel as Center Stage (2001), 165–87; M. Gil, The Jews in Islamic Countries in the Middle Ages (2004), 3–45. [Joseph Braslavi (Braslavski) / Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky (2nd ed.)]

KHAZARS, a national group of general Turkic type, independent and sovereign in Eastern Europe between the seventh and tenth centuries C.E. During part of this time the leading Khazars professed Judaism. The name is frequently pronounced with an a-vowel, as in the Greek Χάξαροι and Arabic Khazar (Ḥ azar), but there are traces of a different pronunciation in Hebrew (Kuzari, pl. Kuzarim), Greek (Χότξιροι), and Chinese (Kʿo-sa). The name has been explained as having derived from Turkish qazmak (“to wander,” “nomadize (?)”), or from quz (“side of mountain exposed to the north”). The latter etymology would account for the o/u-vowel in some forms of the name, for which no satisfactory explanation has been given. The Origin of the Khazars The Khazars, of Turkic stock, originally nomadic, reached the Volga-Caucasus region from farther east at some time not easily determinable. They may have belonged to the empire of the Huns (fifth century C.E.) as the Akatzirs, mentioned by Priscus. This name is said to be equivalent to Aq-Khazar, i.e., White Khazars, as opposed to the Qara-Khazar or Black Khazars mentioned by al-Iṣ ṭakhrī (see below). The Khazars probably belonged to the West Turkish Empire (from 552 C.E.), and they may have marched with Sinjibū (Istämi), the first khāqān of the West Turks, against the Sassanid (Persian) fortress of Ṣ ul or Darband. ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

khazars

In the time of Procopius (sixth century) the region immediately north of the Caucasus was held by the Sabirs, who are referred to by Jordanes as one of the two great branches of the Huns (Getica, ed. Mommsen, 63). Masʿūdī (tenth century C.E.) says that the Khazars are called in Turkish, Sabīr (Tanbīh, ed. Cairo, 1938, 72). In 627 (Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. De Boor, 1 (1883), 315) “the Turks from the East whom they call Khazars” under their chief, Ziebel, passed the Caspian Gates (Darband) and joined Heraclius at the siege of Tiflis. In view of what is known of a dual kingship among the Khazars (see below), it would be natural to assume that Ziebel, described by Theophanes as “second in rank to the khāqān,” was the subordinate Khazar king or beg. However, there are grounds for thinking that Ziebel stands for yabgu, a Turkish title – in the parallel Armenian account (Moses of Kalankatuk, trans. Dowsett, 87) he is called Jebu Khāqān – and that he is T’ung-ye-hu, Ye-hu Khagan of the Chinese sources, i.e., T’ung Yabgu, Yabgu Khāqān, the paramount ruler of the West Turks, who is represented as second in rank to “the King of the North, the lord of the whole world,” i.e., the supreme khāqān of the Turks. In the narratives of Theophanes and Moses of Kalankatuk respectively, the Khazars are also called Turks and Huns. From 681 C.E., we hear much in the latter author of the Huns of Varachʿan (Warathān), north of Darband, who evidently formed part of a Khazar confederation or empire. Their prince Alp Ilutver was often in attendance on the Khazar khāqān and was converted to Christianity by an Albanian bishop. It will be seen that the question of the precise racial affinities of the Khazars is not readily solved (see also below). There appears to be insufficient evidence to warrant the conclusion of K. Czeglédy that the Khazars were of Sabīr origin and distinct from the Caucasian Huns and West Turks (“Bemerkungen zur Geschichte der Chazaren,” Acta Orientalia… Hungariae, 13 (1961), 245), since it is not known how far these ethnic names mean the same thing.

called W-n-nd-r is mentioned in the Ḥ udūd al-ʿĀlam (Regions of the World, trans. by V. Minorsky (1937), 162). Both names are best explained as corresponding to Onogundur, an old name in Greek sources for the Bulgars. The advent of the Khazars on the Black Sea was clearly of great consequence for the future, for they now came within the sphere of Greek political and cultural influence. By 700 C.E. or earlier there were Khazar officials in Bosporus and Phanagoria. Henceforth the Crimea, as well as the Volga and the Caucasus, came to be specially associated with the Khazars, and a further way westward was opened for them toward both Kiev and the Slav lands via the Dnieper (see below). Arabs and Khazars had already been in conflict on the line of the Caucasus (first Arab-Khazar war, 642–52 C.E.). *Bāb al-Abwāb at the eastern end of the range was occupied by the Arabs in 22 A.H. (643). In the same year the caliph Omar sent instructions to advance northward. Though the Arabs attacked *Balanjar repeatedly, they were unable to take it. The defeat and death of the Arab general at Balanjar in 32 A.H. (653) practically marks the end of the war and the close of the first phase of Arab-Khazar relations. According to Musʿūdī, the Khazar capital was at this time moved from *Samandar to *Atil, but he says elsewhere that Balanjar was the former capital.

Consolidation of the Khazar State According to Theophanes (ibid., 358), the ruler of the Bulgars in the region of the Kuban River (West Caucasus) died c. 650 C.E., leaving five sons of whom only the eldest remained in his inheritance, while the others moved further west, as far as the Danube. On this, the Khazars, described as a “great nation … from the interior of Berzilia in the First Sarmatia,” emerged and took possession of the territory as far as the Black Sea. The change of position was completed by 679, when one of the brothers crossed the Danube and conquered presentday Bulgaria. Earlier than this, in 576 C.E., a West Turkish force had been present at the siege of Bosporus (Kerch) in the Crimea (Menander Protector, ed. Bonn, 404), but hitherto there is no mention of the Khazars as such so far to the west. The advance of the Khazars to the Black Sea and Crimea area appears to be mentioned also in the Reply of Joseph (see below, Khazar Correspondence), where a great Khazar victory over the W-n-nt-r is referred to. A people north of the Khazars

Further Relations with Byzantium and the Arabs After the exile of Justinian II to the Crimea in 695, the Khazars on several occasions played an important, even determining, part in Byzantine politics. Toward 704 the khāqān helped the emperor at a crucial moment and gave him his sister Theodora in marriage. Justinian returned to Constantinople to reign a second time. His successor Bardanes (711–13) was likewise indebted to the khāqān. In 732 the emperor Leo the Isaurian married his son, the future Constantine V, to a Khazar princess called in the sources Irene. The child of this marriage was Leo IV, the Khazar (775–80). It is to be understood that Irene and Theodora above are baptismal, i.e., not Khazar, names. The second Arab-Khazar war began in 722 or earlier, and ended in 737 with the defeat of the Khazars by Marwān b. Muhammad (later Marwān II). The Khazar khāqān is said at this time to have professed Islam. If so, we hear no more about it. Later the khāqān was a Jew, as we know from the Arabic geographers Ibn Rustah (c. 290/903), Iṣ ṭakhrī (c. 320/932), Ibn Ḥ auqal (367/977), etc., and it is implied in the Reply of Joseph that the beginnings of Khazar Judaism dated as far back as 112/730, when the Khazars defeated the Arabs south of the Caucasus, and from the spoils consecrated a tabernacle on the Mosaic model. The conversion of the leading Khazars to Judaism perhaps took place toward 740 C.E. (see below). It seems at all events certain that the Khazars successfully resisted the Arabs for several decades, and that they were reduced only with difficulty and at a time when the internal situation of the caliphate prevented the Arabs from exploiting their victory: Marwān was called away to become the last *Umayyad Caliph (744) and to struggle against ever-growing opposition, until

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

109

khazars

¯ BURTAS Kiev Dn ies t

er

I A

.

Vo lga R

R. ? Sarkil Ts y m l a R. ¯ ¯ ? Khazaran-Atil (? Saqsin) .

Don

Z

rR

R

R.

A

e

H

Prut R.

p D ni e

A

GHUZZ

K

CRIMEA ? Doros Kub Kherson Tamatarkha an

R.

ub e R .

? Samandar

Sea

D an

C rs ( aza Kh he of t

¯. (Black Sea) Sea of Nitas Byzantium

BYZANTINE EMPIRE

¯ ¯ ADHARBAYJAN (AZERBAIJAN)

) ian asp

Trebizond

? Balanjar ? Targhu ? Barshaliyah ¯ (? Varach'an/N Warathan) Tiflis Bab ¯ al Abwab ¯ ¯ (GEORGIA) (Darband) JURZAN Baku ARRAN A NI ¯ ¯ . ? S. Warathan ME Khilat R A A L.Van r a s R .

Gurganj ¯ (Jurjaniyah) ¯

¯ KHWARIZM (KHOREZM)

' ¯ Sir Dihistanan ¯ ¯ KHURASAN

¯ JURJAN J u r jan R

.

¯ TABARISTAN .

The Khazar kingdom, c. seventh–tenth century. From D.M. Dunlop, History of the Jewish Khazars, New York, 1967.

The Khazar Double Kingship This was a phenomenon found among other Turkic peoples, e.g., the Qara-Khanids, and not unknown elsewhere; compare the double kingship at Sparta in antiquity, and the shogun and mikado of medieval Japan. How far back the institution goes among the Khazars cannot be exactly determined. Yaʿqūbī (ninth century) speaks of the Khazar khāqān and his representative (khalīfa) apparently in the sixth century (Historiae, ed. by M.T. Houtsma, 1 (1883), 203; cf. above for Ziebel Jebu Khāqān in 627). Arab accounts, in Ṭ abarī, Ibn al-Athīr, etc., of the Arab-Khazar wars (see above) afford no precise evidence of the dual kingship, yet the Arab geographers regularly mention it. The account of al-Iṣ ṭakhrī, written c. 320/932, is as follows (Viae regnorum, ed. by M.J. De Goeje (1927), 223ff.): “As to their politics and system of government, their chief is called khāqān of the Khazars. He is greater than the king of the Khazars [elsewhere called by al-Iṣ ṭakhrī the bak or bāk, i.e., beg], except that the king of the Khazars appoints him. When they wish to appoint this khāqān, they bring him and throttle him with a piece of silk, till, when his breath is nearly cut off, they say to him, ‘How long do you wish to reign?’ and he says, ‘So-

and-so many years.’ If he dies short of them, well and good. If not, he is killed when he reaches that year. The khaqanate is valid among them only in a house of notables. He possesses no right of command nor of veto but he is honored, and people prostrate themselves when they enter his presence.… The khaqanate is in a group of notables who possess neither sovereignty nor riches. When the chief place comes to one of them, they appoint him, and do not consider his condition. I have been informed by a reliable person that he had seen a young man selling bread in one of the sūqs. People said that when their khāqān died, there was none more deserving of the khaqanate than he, except that he was a Muslim, and the khaqanate is not conferred on any but a Jew.” A remarkable parallel to the inauguration ceremony described by Iṣ ṭakhrī is found in a Chinese source on the Turks in the sixth century C.E., the Chou Shu (trans. by Liu MauTsai, Die chinesischen Nachrichten zur Geschichte der OstTuerken, 1 (1958), 8). Recently the theory of A. Alföldi that the double kingship among nomadic peoples corresponds to leadership of the two wings of the horde (“Türklerde çift krallik,” Ikinci Türk Tarih Kongresi, Istanbul, 1943, 507–19) has won wide acceptance, but does not apply particularly well to the Khazars. Masʿūdī had already suspected that the Khazar khāqān represented a dynasty which had been superseded (Murūj al-Dhahab, ed. by B. de Maynard and P. de Courteille, 2 (1878), 13). K. Czeglédy (op. cit.) has suggested that the khāqān was the representative at the Khazar capital, Atil,

110

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

his death in 750 at the hands of *Abbasid soldiers in Egypt. The dynastic crisis probably saved Khazaria. At the same time the situation had wider implications, for if Marwān had been able to hold the Khazar territory permanently, the history of Eastern Europe might have been very different.

khazars

of the West Turks, whom he thinks of as in control of Khazaria. This is not likely to have been the situation except for a very short time, since the Khazar capital was not transferred to Atil before the time of the first Arab-Khazar war (642–52) and the destruction of the West Turkish power took place in 652–57. Yet the Khazar khāqān may in fact have represented the West Turk ruling dynasty. This seems to be the view of the tenth-century Persian work, Ḥ udūd al-ʿĀlam (trans. Minorsky, 162), according to which the khāqān of the Khazars was “of the descendants of Ansāʾ,” apparently corresponding to Asnā, or Achena, well-known as the ruling family among the Turks. Ko-sa (different from Kʿo-sa above), the name in Chinese of a subtribe of the Uigurs, is often taken as the equivalent of Khazars. We know that the destruction of the West Turks was brought about by a coalition of which the Uigurs formed part. It may therefore be that the convulsions which attended the breakup of the West Turkish Empire brought forward this section of the Uigurs, so that, while the khāqān represented the old ruling family, the Khazar beg, i.e., the effective king, was their representative. Date of the Khazar Conversion to Judaism This has already been referred to above (see *Būlān and below Khazar Correspondence). The date c. 740 C.E. is suggested by converging considerations, namely, the circumstances of the reported conversion to Islam in 737 and the dating given by *Judah Halevi in the Kūzari (Cosri). The absence of distinct references to the Judaism of the Khazars in the biographies of St. Abo of Tiflis, who was in Khazaria c. 780 C.E. and of Constantine (Cyril), who was there c. 860, should not be pressed as proof that the conversion to Judaism took place only later (cf. also M.I. Artamonov, Istoriya Khazar, 332–3). Masʿūdī states positively that the king of the Khazars became a Jew in the caliphate of Hārūn al-Rashīd (786–809 C.E.). This may well refer to the reformation c. 800 under *Obadiah of which the Reply of Joseph speaks. S.P. Tolstov has sought to explain the Khazar conversion to Judaism as a result of the conquest of Khwārizm (*Khorezm) by the Arab general Muslim ibn Qutayba in 712.

Volga region which for the Greek and Arabic sources is Khazaria. The Russian Primary Chronicle ((1953), 58–59; Chronicle of Nestor, Povest vremennykh let) reports that at an unspecified date the Polians south of the Middle Dnieper paid tribute to the Khazars of a sword per hearth, and that in 859 C.E. the Polians, Severians, and Viatichians paid them a white squirrel skin per hearth (trans. Cross and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, 58, 59). Later these payments in kind ceased to be made, being evidently replaced by money payments; e.g., the Radimichians paid the Khazars a shilling or dirham apiece until 885 C.E., according to the Chronicle (61), and the Viatichians until 964, the same per plowshare (ibid., 84). All these peoples were exposed to attack by any strong forces coming up the valleys of the Don and Donets from the Khazar territory. Kiev itself was occupied by the Khazars for some period before 862, but presumably was not built by or for them (ibid., 60, cf. 54), unlike Sarkel or *Sarkil on the Don, which on the application of the khāqān and beg to Emperor Theophilus was constructed by Byzantine workmen in 833 C.E. All of these territories were to be taken from the Khazars, some already in the ninth century, by the advancing Russians. East of the Volga, in the direction of Khwārizm, the situation is obscure. Al-Iṣ ṭakhrī tells of caravans passing between Khwārizm and Khazaria, mentioning specifically Slav, Khazar, and Turkish slaves and all kinds of furs among the principal merchandise of Khwārizm. On the other hand, he says that Khwārizm has the nomad Turks (Ghuzz) on its northern and western frontier, not the Khazars. According to Tolstov, a “royal road” led from Khorezm to the Volga, traces of which may be seen from the air, and he finds in it an indication of the emergence of a great Khorezmian-Khazar state in the tenth and beginning of the 11t century (cf. above).

The Khazar Empire The extent of the territory ruled by the Khazars has been variously estimated. Thus B.A. Ribakov (“K voprosu o roli khazarskogo kaganata v istorii Rusi,” Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 18 (1953), 128–50) makes Khazaria a small territory on the lower courses of the Volga and Don, to include Sarkil (see below) and the Khazar capital (assigning separate localities to Atil, Khamlīj, and al-Bayḍ ā’, usually taken to be the same place). This is based principally on the data in the world map of Idrīsī, which offers a somewhat misleading picture of Khazaria (see K. Miller, Mappae Arabicae, 1 (1926), Heft 2). On the other hand, S.P. Tolstov envisages a Khazaria united with Khwārizm under one ruler to form a single state, a view for which the evidence is slight. It must be allowed, however, that at one time Khazar rule extended westward a long way beyond the Crimea-Caucasus-

The Extent of Khazar Judaism While the Khazars were generally known to their neighbors as Jews (cf. notably the narrative of Ibn Faḍ lān), they seem to have had little or no contact with the central Jewish organization in Iraq, and they tend to be mentioned less by Rabbanite than by Karaite authors. This is not to say that the Khazars were Karaites, a view which has not lacked defenders, at least since the time of A. *Firkovich. Yet such contemporary or nearly contemporary documents as we possess offer no evidence of the Karaism of the Khazars. On the other hand, it would seem that the lack of interest in the Khazars on the part of the Jewish authorities, as reflected in the literary works at our disposal, was due at least partly to their imperfect adherence to Judaism. This is illustrated notably in their retention of a number of pagan (shamanist) customs, dating back to their Turkic past, which are duly noted by the Arab geographers. We may here consider the position of H. Baratz that in the oldest Russian writings of a legal character there are Hebrew, mostly biblical-talmudic, elements, and that these go back to Khazar times. Thus the fact that early Russian codes, including the Zakon sudni liudem (“Law for the Judging of the People”), contain traces of Mosaic and talmudic legislation,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

111

khazars

is due not to contact with the Catholic West, as has also been maintained, but to the influence of the Jewish Khazars. This view has been characterized by a Russian academician (I.V. Yagich) as “a scarlet thread for everyone to walk by.” Yet the chance of Khazar influence on Russian codes, in the form of the introduction of Mosaic and talmudic elements, clearly becomes less if it is demonstrable, as seems to be the case, that Khazar Judaism was never very strong. (For Baratz’s view see his Collection of Works on the Question of Hebrew Elements in Ancient Russian Literature – in Russian – Vol. I, Paris, 1926–27, Vol. II, Berlin, 1924; also Léon Baratz, Sur les origines étrangères de la plupart des lois civiles russes, Publications de l’Institut de Droit Comparé de l’Université de Paris (lère Série), 52, Appendice.)

The Khazar Correspondence This name is usually given to what appears as an interchange of letters in Hebrew between *Ḥ isdai ibn Shaprut, a well-known personality of Muslim Spain in the tenth century, and *Joseph,

king of the Khazars. M.I. Artamonov (Istoriya Khazar, 12) includes the Cambridge Document as well as the Letter of Ḥ isdai and the Reply of Joseph in the Khazar Correspondence, but this would seem to be contrary to general usage. The Reply is available in a Long Version and a Short Version (LV and SV). The Correspondence involves serious critical difficulties, and its authenticity has been much debated. The Letter of Ḥ isdai begins with a piyyut containing an acrostic which gives his own name and that of Menaḥ em b. Saruq, the latter presumably acting as Ḥ isdai’s secretary and being the author of the piyyut. The prose part, after compliments, refers to the geographical situation of al-Andalus and Khazaria and describes the natural wealth of al-Andalus and Ḥ isdai’s own position there. It seems that his interest has been aroused by his having heard repeatedly that the Khazars are Jews. The Letter mentions attempts made by Ḥ isdai to get in touch with the Khazar king. He was finally successful through the instrumentality of two Jews, Mar Saul and Mar Joseph, who accompanied an embassy which arrived at Cordoba from the “king of the G-b-līm, who are the Ṣ aqlab” (see below). The Letter of Ḥ isdai was conveyed to the East by their means, i.e., overland, and eventually was put into the hands of the Khazar king, according to the Reply, by a certain Jacob or (LV) Isaac b. Eliezer, a Central European Jew. The tone of the Letter of Ḥ isdai is mostly one of enquiry, and it invites an answer to questions which range over a variety of topics: Is there a Jewish kingdom anywhere on earth? How did the Jews come to Khazaria? In what way did the conversion of the Khazars take place? Where does the king live? To what tribe does he belong? What is his method of procession to his place of worship? Does war abrogate the Sabbath? Has the Khazar king any information about the possible end of the world? Ḥ isdai mentions that ʿAbd al-Raḥ mān III al-Nāṣ ir is the reigning king of al-Andalus. This gives 961 as the terminus ad quem for the Letter, with 953–55 as a possible terminus a quo, for in those years Cordoba was visited by John of Gorz, as envoy of the German emperor Otto I, who may be the “king of the G-b-līm, who are the Ṣ aqlab” already referred to. The Reply of Joseph begins by referring to the principal contents of the Letter and recapitulates a number of its questions. It then relates the early history of the Khazars, and proceeds to deal at length with the conversion to Judaism under Būlān. The conversion is initiated by a dream of Būlān, which he communicates to a certain general among them (LV), apparently the beg. From the spoils of a Khazar attack on Ardabil, south of the Caucasus, for which we have the synchronism 730 in the Arabic sources, a tabernacle on the biblical model is set up. A religious debate between representatives of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is held, after which Būlān and the principal Khazars accept the religion of Israel. Under a later king, Obadiah, there was a reform of religion. Synagogues and schools were built, and the Khazars became familiar with Torah, Mishnah, Talmud, and the liturgy, i.e., rabbinic Judaism was introduced. Joseph then traces his descent from Obadiah and gives a description of his country and capital. He refers

112

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

The Downfall of Khazaria The Reply of Joseph mentions that the Khazars guarded the mouth of the Volga before 961 C.E. and prevented the Russians from reaching the Caspian. On several occasions, notably c. 913 and again in 943, the Russians made raids down the Volga, passing through Atil. Later, apparently in 965, Khazaria was the object of a great Russian attack, which was aimed at the Khazar capital and reached as far as Samandar, as we know from Ibn Ḥ awqal. From this disaster the Khazars appear to have recovered only partially. Again at this time (cf. above) we hear of a Khazar khāqān adopting Islam. His motive is said to have been to secure the help of the people of Khwārizm (Miskawayh, ed. Amedroz, II, 209; Ibn al-Athīr, VIII, 196). After 965 the Khazars are still mentioned occasionally, but scarcely for long as an independent people. We cannot use the Cairo Genizah document published by J. Mann, concerning a messianic movement supposedly in Khazaria in the time of al-Afḍ al, the great Fatimid vizier who ruled 1094–1121 (REJ, 71 (1920), 89–93; 89 (1930), 257–8), as proof of continued Khazar existence until this time, since it has been shown that the movement in question took place in Kurdistan (see S.D. Goitein, “Obadyah, a Norman Proselyte,” in JJS, 4 (1953), 74ff.). Furthermore, Oleg, the same who, according to the Russian Chronicle, established himself in Tmutorokan in 1083, is called in a seal of the 11t–12t century “archon of all Khazaria” (N. Baˇnescu in Bulletin of the Romanian Academy, Hist. Sect. 22 (1941), cited by A.V. Soloviev, For Roman Jakobson (1956), 478). Whatever is precisely indicated here by “Khazaria” – e.g., the Khazar country in the Crimea – such a claim could not have been made prior to 965. We must therefore see the Khazar state as having subsisted until the second half of the tenth century, or the 11t century at the latest. By the 12t century the Qipchaqs or Cumans (identified also with the Polovtsi) appeared in the steppes once ruled by the Khazars. At the time of the Mongol invasions in the 13t century, it was they, not the Khazars, who were in possession.

khazars

to Ḥ isdai’s question concerning the end of the age in a somewhat noncommittal fashion, and finally expresses his desire that Ḥ isdai may come to Khazaria, which, if a notice in a map of Ibn Ḥ awqal can be trusted, he actually did. The correspondence has been available since the appearance of the work Kol Mevasser of Isaac Akrish in or after 1577, and more generally since the two letters were published by the younger *Buxtorf in his edition of the book Cosri (Kūzārī) of Judah Halevi in 1660. It is not known what manuscript source was used by Isaac Akrish; Buxtorf depended on Kol Mevasser. The only known manuscript of the Correspondence as a whole, containing the Letter of Ḥ isdai and the Reply of Joseph (SV), is in the library of Christ Church, Oxford. This manuscript is very similar to the printed text, which, it has been suggested, is a transcript. There appear to be no special grounds for this opinion, though the manuscript, which is undated, has no claims to great antiquity. Nothing is sure about its provenance, but it is thought to have belonged originally to the celebrated Dr. Fell (1625–1686). A longer version of the Reply of Joseph was published by A. *Harkavy in 1874, from a manuscript of the Second Firkovich Collection in the Leningrad Public Library. The Long Version bears no indication of any alterations or additions, and is supposed to date from the 13t century. Harkavy, in spite of his very critical attitude to Firkovich, regarded it as the undoubted original of the Short Version. It appears impossible to suppose that the Khazar Correspondence is a fabrication of the 16t century in view of a reference to it, with the citation of part of the Reply of Joseph, agreeing in general with the Long Version, in the Sefer ha-Ittim of Judah b. Barzillai al-Bargeloni, dated between 1090 and 1105, and a similar reference in the Sefer ha-Kabbalah of Abraham *Ibn Daud in the 12t century. It cannot be admitted that these works were interpolated in the 16t century or later, to support the authenticity. Nor does it appear at all plausible that the letters forming the Khazar Correspondence were forgeries of the tenth century, composed with a view to informing the Jews about the Khazars. It is demonstrable that the literary style of the Letter of Ḥ isdai differs from that of the Reply of Joseph in a marked manner. The classical Hebrew construction of vav conversive with the imperfect to express the past tense is freely used in the Letter of Ḥ isdai, actually 48 times as against 14 times when the past tense is rendered by simple vav with the perfect. In the Reply (LV), on the other hand, vav conversive with the imperfect occurs not more than once or twice, while the past is expressed by the perfect and simple vav nearly 100 times. Further, in the Short Version of the Reply the vav conversive with the imperfect to express the past, instead of simple vav with the perfect, occurs in a number of passages where the wording is different from the Long Version. There is a new proportion of vav conversive with the imperfect to simple vav with the perfect: 37 to 50. It may therefore be affirmed that there is a separate authorship for the Letter and the Reply, and assumed that the Long Version of the Reply, or something very like it, has been worked over by a third hand

to produce the Short Version. There are grounds for thinking that the Reply originally was written in a non-Arabic-speaking environment. Most people would agree with Kokovtsov’s cautious statement that as basis for both versions there is the same original text, in general better preserved in the Long Version. B.A. Ribakov supposed that an authentic letter of King Joseph was worked over in Tmutorokan toward the end of the 11t century (“about 1083”), which resulted in the Long Version, and that some time afterward the text of the Long Version was modified by Jews of Barcelona to produce the Short Version of the Reply.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

113

[Douglas Morton Dunlop]

Khazar Jews After the Fall of the Kingdom The artifacts of the Khazars appear to be scant. A number of sites have been excavated, and though details of the archaeological activity in Russia are difficult to obtain (the Russians hold a monopoly on digs in ancient Khazaria), it appears that there have not been any sensational discoveries to date. No royal burial sites have been unearthed – hardly surprising since, according to Ibn Faḍ lān, the khāqāns were buried under a stream – and no inscriptions, public or private. Prior to 1914 archaeological excavations were conducted in successive years, especially at Verkhniĭ Saltov on the Donets. Since then, scholars have been divided on whether or not Saltov is a Khazar site. Additional work has been done at Bulghār and at the neighboring town of Suwār, which was mentioned in al-Iṣ ṭakhrī. A tenth-century two-storied palace, in which many coins were found, was discovered at the latter site, but this, the only building of a public character which has come to light, might possibly be Bulgar rather than Khazar. Belaya (Bela) Vezha, the ancient Sarkil, near the village of Tsimlyanskaya on the left bank of the lower Don, has been the site which has attracted the most interest in recent years. Though not the Khazar capital, as had been erroneously attested, it was an important settlement. Nothing specifically Jewish has been found there. Nevertheless, discoveries analogous to the culture of Saltov and Mayatskoe Gorodishche, both at least presumed Khazar sites, were unearthed, as well as ceramics engraved with markings of the type found in the Don inscriptions. No traces of the fortress constructed by the Greeks for the Khazars have been found. In spite of the negligible information of an archaeological nature, the presence of Jewish groups and the impact of Jewish ideas in Eastern Europe are considerable during the Middle Ages. Groups have been mentioned as migrating to Central Europe from the East or have been referred to as Khazars, thus making it impossible to overlook the possibility that they originated from within the former Khazar Empire. Even though the 12t-century traveler Benjamin of Tudela did not mention Khazaria as such he did refer to Khazars in Constantinople and Alexandria. Aside from the Kabars (Khazars) who migrated earlier to Hungary, the Hungarian duke Taksony (tenth century) is said to have invited the Khazars to settle in his lands. In about 1117 Khazars appear to have come to Vladimir Monomakh, Prince of Kiev, after fleeing from the Cumans,

kherson

building a town they named Bela Vezha (near Chernigov). If this assumption is correct, these Khazars previously lived in Bela Vezha (Sarkil) and then settled near Chernigov. Prior to this time Jews who were possibly Khazars were introduced by Svyatopolk into Kiev. The Khalisioi in the 12t century, who were mentioned as fighting against Manuel I Comnenus, retained, according to John Cinnamus, “the Mosaic laws but not in their pure form” (see bibl.). As late as 1309 a council of the Hungarian clergy (at Pressburg) forbade Catholics to marry those people who were at that time described as Khazars; papal confirmation of this decision was given in 1346. Both the Mountain Jews and the Karachais seem to be connected with the Khazars of the Caucasus region. It is also possible that there were Khazar Jews in the Crimea, which was known to the Italians in the late Middle Ages and perhaps still later as Gazaria. The Turkish-speaking Karaites of the Crimea, Poland, and elsewhere have affirmed a connection with the Khazars, which is perhaps confirmed by evidence from folklore and anthropology as well as language. There seems to be a considerable amount of evidence attesting to the continued presence in Europe of descendants of the Khazars. The story of the conversion of the Khazar king to Judaism formed the basis for Judah Halevi’s famous philosophical dialogue, Kūzārī (see *Judah Halevi). Bibliography: D.M. Dunlop, History of the Jewish Khazars (1954, p. b. 1967), includes extensive bibliography; idem, in: Roth, Dark Ages, ch. 8, and index; M.I. Artamonov, Istoriya Khazar (1962), especially valuable for the archaeology; V. Minorsky, in: Oriens, 11 (1958), 122–45 (review of Dunlop’s History…); G. Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, 2 (1958), 334–6 (refers to Greek sources); A. Zajączkowski, in: Acta Orientalia Hungaricae, 12 (1961), 299–307 (regards the Karaites as successors of the Khazars); Szyszman, in: Revue de l’Histoire des Religions, 152 (1957), 174–221 (an original short treatment from the Karaite standpoint); A.N. Poliak, Kazariyyah (Heb., 19513); A. Yarmolinsky, in: Bulletin of the New York Public Library, 42 (1938), 695–710; 63 (1959), 237–41 (bibliographies); B.D. Weinryb, in: Studies in Bibliography and Booklore, 6 (1963), 111–29 (updates Yarmolinsky’s bibliographies); B.A. Ribakov, in: Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 18 (1953), 128–50.

mayoralty would result in tangible benefits to the town. Although also supported by the governor-general of New Russia, this recommendation was not approved. In 1884, of 150 merchants, 73 were Jews; 8 factories out of 53 and 55 shops out of 123 belonged to them. At the end of the 19t century, Kherson became an active center of Zionism: the Biluists Ya’akov Shertok and Ze’ev Smilansky were then active. When Eliezer Paper was appointed director of the talmud torah in 1896, he introduced the “Ivrit-be-Ivrit” method, teaching Hebrew through the medium of Hebrew. Jewish pupils constituted a majority in the secondary schools. From the beginning of the 20t century there operated a mutual fund bank for petty merchants and artisans. In 1909 it had 1,093 members and a capital of 13,880 rubles. The Jews of Kherson suffered during the pogroms which swept the Ukraine in 1905 and during the civil war. *Denikin’s soldiers carried out pogroms in April 1919. In the beginning of the Soviet regime, in the years 1921–22, there was great hunger, and many died of starvation (in December 1921, 39; in February 1922, 189). In the 1920s there was a court of law in which proceedings were held in Yiddish, and a Jewish elementary school with an enrollment of 220 in 1925, out of 1,200 children of school age. There were also an industrial school and Jewish departments in the local university. An underground Chabad yeshivah existed at the beginning of the 1930s. Early in the 1930s many Jews worked in factories, and in the biggest – the Petrovski plant – there were 1,500 Jews out of 4,500 workers. There were 14,837 Jews (19 of the total population) in the town in 1926, and 16,145 (of a total population of 96,988) in 1939. The Germans occupied Kherson on August 19, 1941. On August 29 they killed 100 Jews and in early September, 110. On September 7, a ghetto was established, and a Judenrat and Jewish police were organized. On September 24–25 Einsatzkommando 11a murdered 8,000 Jews. Later Jews found hiding were executed, and in February 1942 some 400 children of mixed marriages were killed. In 1959, there were 9,500 Jews (6 of the total population) living in Kherson. The last synagogue was closed by the authorities in 1959 but was returned to the community in 1991 as Jewish life revived despite the emigration of most of the Jews.

KHERSON, city in Nikolayev district, Ukraine. The town was founded in 1778 and Jews began to settle there a few years later. In 1799 there were 39 Jewish merchants in Kherson and 180 Jewish townsmen. A Jewish hospital was built in 1827. Like other communities in New Russia, that of Kherson grew rapidly during the 19t century, as a result of the settlement of the whole area by Jewish emigrants who left the northwestern provinces of the *Pale of Settlement for the southern provinces which were developing in this period. The number of Jews increased from 3,832 in 1847 to 17,755 (30 of the total) in 1897. Jews played an important role in the development of the town, and in 1862 the governor of Kherson province even recommended that one of the Jewish merchants be elected mayor, claiming that there were no suitable Christian candidates. He added that since many of the Jewish merchants owned properties and were educated, the election of one of them to the

Province of Kherson The province (gubernia) of Kherson was until the 1917 Revolution among the provinces of New Russia, and during the 19t century one of the main areas attracting Jews from other parts of Russia. The number of Jews in the province grew from 11,870 in 1818 to 339,910 in 1897, one of the highest rates of increase in the Pale of Settlement. The majority of the Jews lived in the towns: 70.89 in 1897, as against 10.18 in the townlets and 18.93 in the villages. A considerable part of the Jewish population was concentrated in the large urban centers, especially *Odessa. Other large communities at the end of the 19t century were Yelizavetgrad (*Kirovograd), *Nikolayev, and Kherson. The province of Kherson was the principal center for government-sponsored Jewish agricultural settlement in Russia, and the largest relative concentration of Jew-

114

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

khodorkovsky, Mikhail Borisovich

ish farmers in the country was found there (7.15 of the Jewish population of the province in 1897). From the economic point of view, the Jews of the Kherson province were among the wealthiest and most stable in the Pale of Settlement. Like the Jews of the other southern provinces of Russia, those of Kherson were mainly engaged in commerce (41.36 in 1897), particularly trading in grain and other agricultural products; 20.52 of the Jews of the region earned their livelihood from this trade in 1897. General education and modification in the traditional way of life made greater progress among the Jews of Kherson province than in the other regions of the Pale of Settlement; 45.1 of the Jewish men and 24.6 of the Jewish women in the province were able to read Russian in 1897. After the 1917 Revolution, the province was divided up into several separate administrative units. Bibliography: Ḥ akla’im Yehudim be-Arvot Rusyah (1965); M. Golinkin, Me-Heikhalei Yefet le-Oholei Shem (1948), 15, passim. [Yehuda Slutsky]

KHMELNIK (Humielnik, Khmelnik until 1772), town in the Vinnitsa district, Ukraine. A Jewish community is mentioned there as early as 1565; it possessed five houses. In 1606 the local Christian merchants and artisans complained about Jewish competition. It can be assumed that the community suffered during the *Chmielnicki massacres, but it slowly recovered, mainly during the Turkish occupation, 1672–99. In the first half of the 18t century the Jews suffered from the *Haidamacks’ attacks. In 1789 there were 38 Jewish shopkeepers, 53 innkeepers, and 43 artisans, most of them tailors. From 1,417 persons in 1765 (in Khmelnik and environs), the number of Jews had risen to 3,137 in 1847, and to 5,977 in 1897 (of a total population of 11,657). On the eve of World War I most of the shops – in some trades, all of them – belonged to Jews. On May 5, 1919, Jewish *self-defense in Khmelnik was organized. It fought successfully for three months against the bands of Ataman Shepil and Volyniets, killing many of them and taking their arms. In 1926 Khmelnik had 6,011 Jews (of a total population of 10,792), their number dropping to 4,793 (of 7,513) in 1939. In the 1920s artisans’ cooperatives were organized, and in 1927 an agricultural cooperative of former merchants, which numbered 100 Jewish families in 1935, had 60 desyatines, a large number of livestock, and agricultural machines. In the 1920s there was a local Jewish council that conducted its deliberations in Yiddish. In 1934 the Jewish school had 600 pupils (most of the children of the town). The German forces occupied the town on July 17, 1941, and most of the Jews stayed, because the local Party boss was against evacuation. The Jews were ordered to establish a Judenrat of four, to wear a white armband with a blue Magen David, to do slave labor, and to turn over all radios, sewing machines, bicycles, etc. On August 12, 1941 Einsatzkommando 5 murdered 387 men. On January 5, 1942, a ghetto was established, swelled by refugees. On January 9, 5,800 Jews were killed, leaving skilled workers with families and the many who hid. Another 1,240 were gathered and executed on January 18. On June 12 Ukrainian ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

policemen along with Hungarian soldiers killed 360 Jews. On March 3, 1943, the ghetto was liquidated and 1,300 were murdered. Another 132 were executed on June 26, 1943, while 85 Jews escaped. The last 14 escaped in December 1943. Some of them joined Soviet partisan units. Khmelnik was liberated on March 18, 1944. In 1959 over 1,000 Jews (8.5) lived there. In 1979 they numbered about 500. Most of them left for Israel and the West in the 1990s. Bibliography: Reshummot, 3 (1923), 393; B. West (ed.), Naftulei Dor, 2 (1955), 142–59 (Eng., Struggle of a Generation, 1959); idem, Be-Ḥ evlei Kelayah (1963), 94–98; Vyestnik Zapadnoy Rossü (1869). [Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]

KHODASEVICH, VLADISLAV FELITSIANOVICH (1886–1939), Russian poet, son of a Russified Pole and of the daughter of J. *Brafman. Khodasevich began to publish verse in 1905, and his first anthology appeared in 1908. Born in Moscow, he emigrated from the U.S.S.R. in 1922 and settled in Paris, where he lived destitute and in poor health. A highly gifted lyric poet in his own right, Khodasevich is also remembered as a translator of Polish, Armenian, and modern Hebrew verse. His appreciation of *Bialik (1934) is probably the best brief essay on the Hebrew poet ever written in Russian. Khodasevich translated many Hebrew poets, most notably Saul *Tchernichowsky, and he published a volume of these translations, Iz yevreyskikh poetov (1921, 19232). He was also coeditor, with L.B. Jaffe, of Yevreyskaya antologiya, an anthology of Hebrew writing brought out in Russia in 1918 by the Safrut publishing house. The foremost Russian émigré poet, Khodasevich remained unknown in the U.S.S.R., where none of his books or translations was allowed to appear or to circulate in the U.S.S.R. after his departure for the West. Literaturnye stati i vospominaniya, a volume of essays and recollections, appeared in New York in 1954, and a modern edition of his poetry in 1961. Bibliography: N.N. Berberova, The Italics Are Mine (1969); idem, in: Russian Review, 11:2 (1952), 78–85; V.V. Veidle, Poeziya Khodasevicha (1928). [Maurice Friedberg]

KHODORKOVSKY, MIKHAIL BORISOVICH (1963– ), Russian “oligarch.” Born in Moscow to a Jewish father who was a factory worker, Khodorkovsky graduated from the Mendeleev Institute of Chemical Technology, where he studied economics, and served as deputy head of the Communist Youth League, the Komsomol. With several partners from the Komsomol he opened a private coffee house in 1986, expanding to import and sell such goods as brandy and computers. By 1988 he had built up an import-export business that brought in $10 million a year. In 1989 he and his partners opened Bank Menatep, one of Russia’s first privately owned banks. Highly successful, Menatep was the first Russian enterprise to issue stocks to the public since the Russian Revolution (1917). Its clients included many government services and ministries. Meanwhile, Khodorkovsky continued to expand his import-

115

khomeini, Ayatollah

export empire. In 1995 Menatep won the bid to acquire a controlling interest in the state-owned oil company Yukos. When the ruble collapsed in 1998 Menatep went under as well, losing its banking license and its shares in Yukos. By 2000 Khodorkovsky was back on his feet, and back in control of Menatep and Yukos. In 2003 Yukos merged with the Sibneft oil company. With 19.5 billion barrels of oil and gas, the corporation owned the second-largest oil and gas reserves in the world, after Exxon Mobil. That year, Khodorkovsky ranked #26 on the list of the World’s Richest People and #1 as the wealthiest man in Russia. On October 23, 2003, the billionaire Khodorkovsky was arrested on charges of fraud and tax evasion. His dramatic arrest was carried out by 15 masked federal operatives and dozens of armed agents. In May 2005 he was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. In October 2005, he was sent to a labor camp. The Russian crackdown on the economic crimes of the so-called oligarchs – a few dozen Jews and non-Jews controlling a quarter of Russia’s national product and worth over $100 billion – has been perceived by many as tinged with antisemitism. [Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

°KHOMEINI, AYATOLLAH (1902–1989), Iranian religious leader. He was born in the small town of Khomein situated in the central part of *Iran and died in *Teheran. He lost his father when he was an infant and later his mother when he was 15. He studied Islamic theology in Arāk, a town in central Iran, and years later completed his studies in the holy city of Qomm. In 1961 and 1963 Khomeini showed strong opposition to Mohammad Reza Shah’s reforms, leading demonstrations and riots against the Shah. He consistently blamed the U.S. and Israel for all the corruption and backwardness in Iran. On June 3, 1963, he gave a provocative speech mainly against what he called the dependence of the Shah’s regime upon the U.S. and Israel. Two days later he was arrested, which resulted in anti-Shah demonstrations in Qomm and in other cities of Iran. The slogan “Death to the Shah, Death to America, and Death to Israel” was seen and heard almost everywhere. The demonstrations were crushed by the Shah’s troops; many were killed or wounded. On November 4, 1963, Khomeini was sent into exile, first to *Turkey and then to *Iraq where he resided in the Shi’i holy city of Najaf. Anti-regime demonstrations motivated by Khomeini’s speeches, recorded on cassettes and pamphlets in Najaf, continued however to arrive in Iran. The unrest and commotions culminated in 1977/78. The shah requested the Iraqi Government to expel Khomeini from Iraq. Khomeini chose to go to France (October 5, 1978). His frequent speeches from there, too, agitated the people against the Shah, the U.S. and Israel. The future of the Jewish community in Iran was in jeopardy. Several thousand Jews in Teheran, headed by some wellknown social and religious personalities were “advised” to

116

take part in demonstrations, which they did (December 11, 1978). Finally the Shah left Iran on January 16, 1979, and two weeks later Khomeini entered the country, being welcomed by millions of people; the Jews of Teheran once again were “advised” to join the demonstration to welcome Khomeini’s arrival (February 13, 1979). Soon afterwards, an Islamic Republic was formed with a new Islamic constitution. Though it contained many discriminatory provisions against non-Muslims, it still granted second-class citizenship rights to Jews and other religious minorities, as protected non-Muslim monotheists – with the exception of the Bahais who were persecuted and over 200 of them were massacred all over Iran. The treatment of the Jews was ambivalent. In the first two to three years of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), about one-third of Iran’s 80,000 Jews left for Israel, Europe, and the U.S. IRI broke its relations with Israel. The regime adapted a pro-Palestinian policy declaring that Israel and Zionism must be destroyed. IRI also encouraged the foundation of Hizbollah in Lebanon by supporting it with money, arms, and military advisers. Any tie with Israel was considered war against Islam. Though upon his return from Paris Khomeini met with the heads of the Jewish community, declaring that Jews were to be protected by Islamic law, some 200 Jews were arrested and jailed. During his rule, about 20 Jews were executed by the Revolutionary Courts, among them the former head of the Jewish Organization, the industrialist millionaire Habib Elghanaian (May 9, 1979). Many were deprived of their administrative, university, and high business positions. Jewish property on a large scale, amounting to more than one billion dollars, was confiscated by the regime. In recent years the IRI has tried to demonstrate some “friendly relations” with the remaining Jews of Iran who were led by the former Tudeh Party member, Parviz (Haroon) Yeshayai, the head of the Jewish Central Organization in Teheran. Nevertheless, events, such the arrest of 13 Jews in the last decade of the 20t century, allegedly spying for Israel, show the true face of these relations. As long as the hatred against Israel and Zionism and the support of terrorist organizations such as Hizbollah continue to fuel the foreign policy of Iran, the situation of Jews in IRI will remain precarious. Bibliography: Sh. Bakhash, The Reign of the Ayatollas: Iran and the Islamic Revolution (1984); A. Netzer, “Be’ayot ha-Integraẓ yah ha-Tarbutit, ha-Ḥ evratit ve-ha-Politit shel Yehudei Iran,” in: Gesher, 25:1–2 (1979), 69–83; idem, “Yehudei Iran, Yisrael, ve-ha-Republikah ha-Islamit shel Iran,” ibid., 26:1–2 (1980), 45–57; idem, “Iran ve-Yehudeha be-Parashat Derakhim Historit,” ibid., 1:10 (1982), 96–111; R.K. Ramazani, Revolutionary Iran (1986), 282–85; B. Souresrafil, Khomeini and Israel (1988). [Amnon Netzer (2nd ed.)]

KHOREZM (Ar. Khwarizm), formerly also called Khīva, district in N.W. Uzbekistan, on the lower course of the Amu Darya River (Oxus), S. of the Aral Sea. From references in the Chronicles of the Arab historian al-Ṭ abarī (838–923) to the Arab conquest of Khorezm, and from related passages in the Cambridge Document (see *Khazars), S.P. Tolstov conENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

khotin

cluded that the religion of the people of Khorezm before the Arab conquest was a peculiar syncretistic form of Judaism and that this was imported to Khazaria by survivors from the Judaizing circles from Khorezm (i.e., around 712 C.E.). The refugees were responsible not only for the Khazar conversion to Judaism but also, through setting aside the original Khazar khāqān and making their chief, *Būlān, the real ruler of Khazaria, responsible for the establishment of the Khazar dual kingship. However, no firm evidence exists for these conclusions and some of Tolstov’s details are manifestly incorrect: e.g., that R. Isaac Sangari, traditionally credited with playing an important part in the Khazars’ conversion to Judaism, should be identified with Khāmjird (presumed = Khangiri, a name found on some Khorezmian coins), who is mentioned by al-Ṭ abarī. Yet in al-Ṭ abarī’s account Khāmjird is evidently the name of a region and not of a person. Tolstov further held that at one time, apparently in the eighth century, Khazaria and Khorezm formed a single state. However, his evidence, based largely on coins, is again far from conclusive. Similarly doubtful is his projected second union between Khazaria and Khorezm in the 10t and 11t centuries. Nevertheless it is clear that some relations existed between Khorezm and Khazaria. Caravans passed between the two countries, and a corps of some thousands of men who had originally come “from the neighborhood of Khwārizm” were stationed at the Khazar capital, *Atil, in the tenth century (according to the contemporary Arab historian, al-Masʿūdī). Bibliography: M. ibn J. al-Ṭ abarī, Annales: Tarīkh al-Rusul wal-Mulūk… ed. by M.J. de Goeje, ser. 1 pt. 5 (repr., 1964), 2903; ser. 2 pt. 2 (repr., 1964), 1142–43, 1236–41; cf. Fr. tr. by M.H. Zotenberg, 3 (1871), 573; 4 (1874), 177; Abu-Raiḥ ān al-Bīrūnī, The Chronology of Ancient Nations, tr. and ed. by C.E. Sachau (1879), 42; D.M. Dunlop, History of the Jewish Khazars (1954), index S.V. Khwārism; A.N. Poliak, Kazariyyah (1951), index; Baron, Social2, 3 (1954), 326; S. Szyszman, in: RHR, 152 (1957), 186–90; S.P. Tolstov, Po sledam drevnekharezmiyskoy tsivilizatsii (1948: Auf den Spuren der altchoresmischen Kultur, 1953), esp. chs. 9–10; idem, in: Sovetskaya etnografiya (1946), 94–104; M.I. Artamonov, Istoriya Khazar (1962), 283–7 and index; F. Altheim and R. Stiehl, in: Anales de historia antigua y medieval, 8 (1955), 56–61; idem, Finanzgeschichte der Spaetantike (1957), 264–72.

KHOTIN (Hotin in Romanian; Khocim in Polish), town in Bessarabia, today Moldova. Jewish merchants traveling from Constantinople to Lvov in the 15t and 16t centuries used to pass through Khotin, then an important customs station on the Polish-Moldavian border on the commercial route between Turkey and Poland. Similarly, Jewish merchants from Poland used to visit Khotin for the fairs held there, evidence for which dates from 1541. However, the residence of Jews in Khotin is first mentioned in documents in 1741. When the Frankist movement arose in nearby Podolia in the 18t century (see Jacob *Frank and Frankists), Khotin, then under direct Turkish rule, served as a refuge for Frank and his followers when they were forced to leave Poland. In this period it also served as a refuge for *Judaizers who fled from Russia, and the community even sent emissaries to Germany to collect contributions for their maintenance. The Jews of Khotin then maintained a flourishing trade with the Ukraine and other regions of Bessarabia, and they also leased the management of estates and various branches of the farm economy. There were 340 Jewish families in 1808. After the incorporation of Bessarabia into Russia in 1812 the community grew as a result of the large Jewish immigration into the region. The community numbered 6,342 in 1864 and 9,227 (50.2 of the total population) in 1897. A Jewish government school was established in 1847 which encouraged the growth of Haskalah; a private school for girls was opened in 1857. The Jews in Khotin were subject to the restrictions on Jewish residence in the border zones, and suffered, mainly at the end of the 19t century, from persecution by the authorities, who expelled them from Khotin on the grounds that they had no rights of residence in the city. In the first half of the 19t century, Isaiah Schorr, one of the most important rabbis in Bessarabia in the period, officiated in Khotin. After Bessarabia was incorporated into Romania in 1918 the community led an active cultural and communal life. Before World War II its institutions included a hospital (founded in 1865), an old-age home, a soup kitchen, a talmud torah, and a *Tarbut elementary school. It numbered 5,786 (37.7 of the total population) in 1930. [Eliyahu Feldman]

KHOROL, city in Poltava district, Ukraine. Jews first settled in Khorol in the early 19t century; from only 78 in 1847 their number grew to 2,056 (25 of the total population) in 1897. The Jews of Khorol constituted a typical community of *Chabad Ḥ asidim, described by B. *Dinur, a native of Khorol, in his memoirs Be-Olam she-Shaka (1958). Dinur’s grandfather, Abraham Madeyevski, was rabbi of Khorol in the second half of the 19t century. There were schools for boys and girls as well as ḥ adarim. In October 1905 a pogrom occurred, and in 1919 another pogrom was organized by soldiers of General Denikin. In 1926 the Jewish population numbered 2,089 (19.7), but dropped to 701 (6.4 of the total population) in 1939. The Germans occupied Khorol on September 13, 1941, and in October they murdered the 460 remaining Jews. [Yehuda Slutsky]

Holocaust Period In 1940, after Khotin was incorporated into Soviet Russia, it had a Jewish population of 15,000, including some Russian Jews who had settled there. When war broke out with Germany a number of Jews managed to escape to other parts of the Soviet Union. The city was captured by German-Romanian forces on July 7, 1941. The Jews were ordered to stay indoors, and detachments of soldiers, commanded by SS officers, went from house to house and arrested some 2,000 of them who were taken to the city square and shot. A few days later the remaining Jewish population was ordered to assemble in the Jewish school, and all those found hiding were shot on the spot. At night the soldiers removed women and girls from the school and assaulted them, sometimes killing them afterward. After a few days spent without food or water, hun-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

117

khouri, makram

dreds of Jews died, especially the sick, the old, and the very young. On the fifth day German troops, commanded by an SS officer, picked out Rabbi Twersky and 57 professional men among the detainees (lawyers, doctors, and teachers), took them to the outskirts, and killed them all. Meanwhile, the Jewish houses were looted by the local population. On August 1, the surviving Jews were taken to the village of Barnova, east of the town, where some of them were forced by the Romanian soldiers to dig their own graves, in which they were buried alive. The rest were sent to the concentration camp at Secureni (Sekiryany). The 3,800 Jews now left in the city of Khotin were marched to *Ataki, where many succumbed to an epidemic that broke out there. The survivors were sent back to Secureni, where hundreds more died of typhus and other diseases. Finally, the rest were deported to *Transnistria, from which only a few returned. Of the prewar Jewish community, only 500 Jews were left in 1945. In 1970 the Jewish population was estimated at about 1,000. The Jews had their own cemetery, but there was no synagogue. [Jean Ancel] Bibliography: M. Carp, Cartea Neagraˇ, 3 (1947), 81; HerzKahn, in: Eynikeyt (Sept. 22, 1945).

to the First Knesset on the Mapai list, but resigned in 1951 to be elected mayor of Haifa, against the background of the violent seamen’s strike that had broken out in Zim ships. Though Mapai objected to the seamen’s strike that was supported by Mapam and the Communists, and the police in Haifa participated in the efforts to break up the strike, Khoushi was known for his support of the workers in their industrial struggles, frequently demonstrating his contempt for the “bourgeoisie” of Mount Carmel. As mayor he invested great efforts in developing Haifa, which remained the only city in Israel in which there is public transportation on Saturday, and constructed an underground funicular – the Carmelit – that connected Mount Carmel with the downtown area. He also promoted the creation of parks and places of recreation in the city, and was instrumental in helping establish the University of Haifa. He actively promoted good neighborly relations with the Arab residents of Haifa, and with the Druze settlements of Usfiyya and Dāliyat al-Karmil on the outskirts of Haifa. He wrote Be-Veit Po’alei Ereẓ Yisrael (“In the Home of the Workers in Ereẓ Yisrael,” 1943). [Benjamin Jaffe / Susan Hattis Rolef (2nd ed.)]

KHOUSHI (Schneller), ABBA (1898–1969), Israeli labor leader and mayor of Haifa. Born in Turka, Eastern Galicia, he was active in *He-Ḥ alutz and Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir in Galicia. He settled in Palestine in 1920 and participated in the founding conference of the *Histadrut. In his first years in the country he worked in road construction, and also in the drainage of swamps in Nahalal and the Jezreel Valley. He was one of the founders of kibbutz Beit Alfa, where he engaged in agriculture. Khoushi gained a proficient knowledge of Arabic, and had numerous Arab acquaintances. In 1927 he settled in Haifa, where he organized dock workers in a trade union within the framework of the Histadrut, and helped to bring 500 Jewish dock workers to Palestine from Salonika. In 1931–51 Khoushi was the secretary of the Haifa Labor Council. On “Black Saturday,” June 29, 1946, he managed to avoid detention. He was a member of Aḥ dut ha-Avodah, and later of Mapai. He was elected

KHURASAN (also Khorasan), province of N.E. *Persia. The earliest mention of Jews living in Khurasan in the early fourth century appears in the Babylonian Talmud (Avodah Zarah 31b), where the present city of Merv is written in its older form MRGW’N. The Tang-e Azao inscription written in Hebrew script indicates the date 1064 Seleucid era/753–4 C.E. It was found in the Gur region in eastern Khurasan. In the same period a commercial note, also written in Hebrew script, was also found in eastern Khurasan in the place called Dandan Uiliq. In the Middle Ages Khurasan also included *Afghanistan, Turkestan, and Transoxiana. Jewish history has a long association with Khurasan, which in some Hebrew sources was believed to be the dwelling place of the *Ten Lost Tribes. Reliable rabbinical, *Karaite, and Muslim sources testify to a widely spread Jewish settlement in Khurasan. The caliph Omar II (717–720) ordered his governor in the province “not to destroy any synagogues, but also not to allow new ones to be erected.” Muslim sources also speak of Jewish jewelers and poets from Khurasan in the period of the *Abbasid caliphate (750–1258). An interesting Jewish figure from the ninth century known as *Hiwi al-Balkhi was the resident of the city of Balkh situated in the far eastern part of then Khurasan. The Arab geographer al-Maqdisī (985) stated, “There are in Khurasan many Jews and only a few Christians.” The Hebrew chronicle of *Nathan b. Isaac ha-Kohen ha-Bavli (10t century) and the parallel version of *Seder Olam Zuta deal with a dispute between the head of the academy in *Pumbedita and the exilarch *Ukba concerning jurisdiction over the Jews in Khurasan. The Jewish authorities in *Baghdad used Khurasan as a place of exile for undesirables. Geonic literature speaks of a special Khurasan custom in matters of the calendar, marriage laws, and other halakhic subjects, but the Jews of Khurasan were enjoined by the Jewish authorities in Babylonia to com-

118

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

KHOURI, MAKRAM (1945– ), Israeli actor. Khouri, an Israeli Arab, was born in Jerusalem and raised in Acre. He performed with the Cameri Theater and then with the Haifa Municipal Theater. He appeared frequently on Arabic and Hebrew general Israeli television as well as on educational television and played in films. In 1987 he was awarded the Israel Prize for theater, cinema, and television arts. In addition, Khouri was awarded the Moshe ha-Levi prize and the Kinnor David as the theater actor of the year in 1984. He was also awarded the Israeli Oscar as a film actor. Among his films are Wedding in Galilee (1987) and The Syrian Bride (2005). In 2004 he was selected to play the Palestinian president in the TV series West Wing. [Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)

kibbutz festivals

ply with the Babylonian minhag. According to *Benjamin of Tudela in the 12t century the authority of the Exilarch in Baghdad extended over the communities of Khurasan. The Jews lived in the cities of Sistan, *Nishapur, *Merv, Kabul, Kandahar, Ghazni (see *Afghanistan), *Balkh, and the region east of *Herat. During the 16t century, Jews from Khurasan arrived in *India. They settled mainly in Old Delhi, Lahore, Kashmir, Agra, and Fatehpur. Many Jewish communities in Afghanistan and Turkestan were later augmented by Jews from *Meshed fleeing after the forced conversion of 1839. Bibliography: Neubauer, Chronicles, 2 (1895), 78ff.; W.J. Fischel, in: HJ, 7 (1945), 29–50. Add. Bibliography: M. Zand, “Bukhara,” in: Encyclopaedia Iranica, ed. by E. Yarshater (1989), 532ff. [Walter Joseph Fischel / Amnon Netzer (2nd ed.)]

KHUST (Czech Chust or Husté; Hung. Huszt), city in Subcarpathian Ruthenia (Transcarpathian district), Ukraine. The Jewish community established in the middle of the 18t century numbered 14 families in 1792. Jacob of Zhidachov was appointed as the first rabbi in 1812. In the mid-19t century, the community became one of the largest and most important in northern Hungary, mainly through the authority of the Orthodox leader, Moses *Schick, rabbi of Khust from 1861 to 1879. Most of the Orthodox rabbis in Hungary were trained in his yeshivah, which had some 400 students. His successors, Amram *Blum and Moses *Grunwald (1893–1912), prevented the development of Ḥ asidism in the community. Under Czechoslovakian rule (1920–38), Khust had an active Jewish life: five town councillors represented a United Jewish Party in 1923. The rabbi of the city from 1921 to 1933 was Joseph *Duschinsky, later rabbi of the separatist Orthodox community of Jerusalem. The number of Jews living in the town was 3,391 in 1921, 4,821 in 1930, and 6,023 (of a total population of 21,118) in 1941. Most of the businesses and artisan shops in the town belonged to Jews, among them three banks, factories, and flour mills. Among professionals were seven doctors, three pharmacists, and officials. The Jews of Khust were among the first to suffer when the area came under Hungarian rule in March 1939. Jewish men of military service age were forced into the labor battalions, some were sent to the Eastern front, where they perished. Hundreds without Hungarian citizenship were deported to Ukraine, and were murdered there. In 1942 there were approximately 100–130 yeshivah students in Khust. In March 1944 there were 5,351 Jews in Khust, and a ghetto and a Judenrat were set up. Another 5,000 Jews from the area were brought into the ghetto. In late May and early June, all ghetto inhabitants were deported in four transports to Auschwitz, where most of them were sent to gas chambers. In June 1944 the town was declared “*judenrein.” A few dozen Jews volunteered for the Czechoslovakian army, which fought together with the Soviet army. After World War II the community was revived. In the late 1960s the authorities permitted a synagogue to open in Khust, the only one in the district, and the community had a ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

shoḥ et. At the time the number of Jewish families in the town was estimated at 400. Bibliography: J.J.(L.) Greenwald (Grunwald), Maẓ ẓ evat Kodesh (1952), 45–53; Y. Ereẓ (ed.), Karpatorus (1959), passim; S. Rozman, Zikhron Kedoshim li-Yhudei Karpatorus-Marmorosh (1968, Yid.), 274–5, 322–7, 458–61, and passim. [Meir Lamed]

KIBBUTZ FESTIVALS. Kibbutz celebrations originated in the 1920s and 1930s as an attempt to recapture the “ancient Hebrew” – mainly the agricultural – character of Jewish holidays. (See Table: List of Published Texts of Kibbutz Festivals and Special Occasions.) Over the years they acquired a tradition of their own, as nearly two generations of kibbutz children grew up celebrating them. When the first kindergarten and school were established in each kibbutz, the settlers became aware of a need for festive occasions, both as an educational experience for the children and to relieve the monotony of daily life. The traditional Jewish festivals thus served as the basis for a revival enriched by biblical and mishnaic sources. Passover Passover (Pesaḥ ) was the first festival to be revived in its seasonal context, as it is both the Spring Festival and the Festival of Freedom. The kibbutz *Haggadah – the Haggadah compiled at kibbutz Yagur was the prototype – was based on the theme of the Exodus from Egypt, but included events of a similar nature pertinent to modern Jewish history and kibbutz life, as well as appropriate passages from modern Hebrew literature. The *seder was held in public and became an elaborate function, with music and dancing, for members, children, and guests. The 1985 Haggadah of the Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad movement reflected a tendency to return to traditional materials. The Counting of the Omer The counting of the Omer (Sefirat ha-Omer). An *omer festival based on biblical and mishnaic sources was inaugurated, symbolizing the harvesting of the first ripe grain. On the eve of the first day of Passover, kibbutz members and their children formed a procession and went singing and dancing to the fields. A number of ears of grain were ceremonially cut, to be placed in the communal dining hall as part of the Passover decorations. The Festival of the First Fruits The Festival of the First Fruits (Ḥ agigat ha-Bikkurim) takes place during the Feast of Weeks (Shavuot) and marks the peak of the first grain harvest and the first ripe fruits. The seven species mentioned in the Bible (wheat, barley, vines, pomegranates, olive trees, fig trees, and honey; Deut. 8:8) are represented graphically and through song and dance. There were also mass rallies to bring offerings of first fruits to the *Jewish National Fund. The Sheepshearing Festival The Sheepshearing Festival (Ḥ agigat ha-Gez) originated in the 1920s in the Valley of Jezreel, and is based on biblical

119

kibbutz festivals

sources. It was celebrated only in kibbutzim that own flocks, and symbolizes the joy of the shepherd when the shearing is finished. The last sheep is ceremonially sheared to the accompaniment of singing and dancing. Short plays are performed, usually on the theme of I Samuel 25 (the story of Abigail and Nabal), and displays of woolen goods and art on pastoral themes are held. The Festival of the Vineyards The Festival of the Vineyards (Ḥ agigat ha-Keramim). Several attempts were made to revive this festival, mentioned in the Mishnah (Ta’an. 4:8) and held on the 15t of Av. Festivities combined music, choreography, poetry, and love songs. The Harvest Festival The Harvest Festival (Ḥ agigat ha-Asif ), which was added in the 1950s to Tabernacles (Sukkot), has as its themes the gathering of the second grain crop and the autumn fruit, the start of the agricultural year, and the first rains. Based on the Water-Drawing (Bet ha-Sho’evah) Festival (Mish. Suk. 5:1–4), it is celebrated in some kibbutzim at night around the swimming pool. Anniversaries of events important in the history of a particular kibbutz inspire many pageants, acted by the members and their children. Marriage and bar mitzvah ceremonies are celebrated, as are Children’s Day, and the day on which the young people of the kibbutz become members. Martyrs and Heroes Day on the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (the 27t of Nisan) commemorates the victims of the Holocaust and is marked by memorial ceremonies and dramas on the subject of the Warsaw Ghetto and other Jewish resistance. Other festivals, such as the 15t of Shevat, Hanukkah, and Israel Independence Day (the 5t of Iyyar) are celebrated, but they do not take a form peculiar to the kibbutz. Kibbutz festivals symbolize the new life and farming background of the settlers, and are a rich treasure of Jewish folklore and culture. Providing outlets for the talents of those kibbutz members who are artists, poets, composers, producers, and choreographers, the festivals are a distinct contribution to Israel culture. An archive housed in Kibbutz Beit ha-Shitah contains extensive information about kibbutz festivals and cultural life.

Name of Work

Author

Composer

Publisher

Massekhet ha-Omer (Omer Celebration)

Anadad Eldan

Avraham Daus

Reprint, Kibbutz Hefẓ ibah

Yekutiel Shor

The Center for Education and Culture of the Histadrut

Ḥ anan Bi-Sedeh Koẓ erim (pageant for the First Shadmi Fruits Festival) Koveẓ Ḥ ag ha-Gez (Sheepshearing Festival)

Matityahu Matityahu Shelem Shelem (ed.)

Shirim le-Tu be-Av (15 of Av)

Dov Shay

Yiẓ har Yaron

Shirim u-Meḥ olot le- Efrayim Tu be-Av (pageant) ben (15 of Av) Ḥ ayyim Simḥ at Beit haSho’evah u-Mo’adei ha-Mayim (Water Festival)

Author

Composer

Publisher

Yagur Haggadah (for Passover)

Yehudah Sharett (ed.)

Yehudah Sharett

The Center for Education and Culture of the Histadrut

Zikhron Hava’at ha-Omer (Omer Celebration)

Shalom Postolsky

Hava’at ha-Omer (Omer Celebration)

Matityahu Matityahu Shelem Shelem

120

Mo’adim series, “Pesah,” (5.3.1946) JNF and Ommanut magazine (M. Lipson, ed.) The Center for Education and Culture of the Histadrut

in Y. Yaron, Rinnot, the Center for Education and Culture of the Histadrut Reprint, Kibbutz Kiryat Anavim

Yehudah Sharett

Onot, no. 4, Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad

Simḥ at Beit haSho’evah (pageant for Water Festival)

Yiẓ ḥ ak Asher

Karel Salmon

Kibbutz ha-Dati (1958)

Tekes Ḥ ag ha-Asif (Harvest Festival)

Anadad Eldan

David Zahavi

The Center for Education and Culture of the Histadrut

Yehudah Sharett

Aryeh Ben-Gurion (ed.), Va’adat ha-Ḥ aggim haBein-kibbutzit

Yalkut Bar Mitzvah Yehudah (bar mitzvah Sharett ceremony, anthology)

Va’adat ha-Ḥ aggim haBein-kibbutzit

Massekhet haSho’ah ve-haGevurah (anthology for Holocaust Memorial Day) Ẓ evi Shua, Israel Guttman

Va’adat ha-Ḥ aggim ha-Bein-kibbutzit and Moreshet (1968)

“Kelulot” (for kibbutz Matityahu weddings) Shelem

Ha-Va’adah ha-Beinkibbutzit le-Havvai uMo’ed (1968)

Kovez “B” le-Yom ha-Zikkaron, “Ha-Sho’ah ve-haMered” (Holocaust Memorial Day)

List of Published Texts of Kibbutz Festivals and Special Occasions Name of Work

Aguddat ha-Nokedim be-Israel

Kibbutz festivals for Israel’s 20th anniversary: “Yerushalayim” (choreographic play)

Leah Yisre’eli

David Ori

Ha-Musikah haYisra’elit, Ltd. (1968)

“La-Ḥ ag Mizmor” (Cantata for choir and orchestra)

Yehudah Engel

Yehudah Engel

Ha-Merkaz le-Tarbut ule-Ḥ innukh (1968)

Songs for Miscellaneous Festivals

The Music Committee of Kibbutz Arẓ i – haShomer ha-Ẓ a’ir

Anniversary celebrations (playlets)

Various kibbutzim [Matityahu Shelem]

Website: www.chagim.org.il

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kibbutz movement

KIBBUTZ MOVEMENT. The kibbutz, or kevuẓ ah (plural: kibbutzim, kevuẓ ot) is a voluntary collective community, mainly agricultural, in which there is no private wealth and which is responsible for all the needs of the members and their families. The kibbutz movement in Israel in 1969 numbered 93,000 people in 231 kibbutzim and kevuẓ ot organized in several federations according to social, political, and religious outlook. Since that time the kibbutz has undergone enormous changes, distancing itself from the classic model (see below) and becoming what its founders never dreamed it would become. The first kevuẓ ah was founded in 1909 at *Deganyah by a group of pioneers, who, after working at first as employees of the Palestine Land Development Company, undertook collective responsibility for the working of the farm. Another group, which started work at *Kinneret in the same year, became an independent kevuẓ ah in 1913. By 1914 there were 11 kevuẓ ot established on Jewish National Fund land under the responsibility of the Zionist Organization, and the number grew to 29 by the end of 1918. The early kevuẓ ot had small memberships based upon the idea that the community should be small enough to constitute a kind of enlarged family. During the Third Aliyah, after World War I, when larger numbers of pioneering settlers (ḥ alutzim) arrived, Shelomo *Lavi and others proposed the establishment of large, self-sufficient villages, combining agriculture with industry, for which the name “kibbutz” was used. The first of this type was *En Harod, founded in 1921, and many others followed. Later, however, the distinction between the two terms almost disappeared. The kibbutzim and kevuẓ ot combined to establish federations in accordance with their social character, political affiliations, or religious outlook: Ḥ ever ha-Kevuẓ ot, founded in 1925 (later merged in Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-ha-Kibbutzim); Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i haShomer ha-Ẓ a’ir, and Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad, both founded in 1927; and Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati, founded in 1935. In 1979 the two kibbutz organizations, Kibbutz Ha-Meuḥ ad and Iḥ ud HaKevutzot ve-ha-Kibbutzim reunited after 28 years of separation to form the Ha-Tenuah ha-Kibbuẓ it ha-Meuḥ edet (TaKaM). (For separate accounts, see below.) The kibbutzim received their manpower mainly from the pioneering youth movements abroad and, in their turn, provided the movements with a practical ideal of pioneering settlement on the land in order to make a major contribution to the building of the Jewish National Home and create a model and a basis for the socialist society of the future. They played an important part in expanding the map of Jewish settlement and safeguarding the growing community. In the late 1930s many were set up overnight on the *Tower and Stockade plan so as to forestall official obstruction and Arab attack. The kibbutzim served as bases for the *Haganah defense force and later the *Palmaḥ , its commando section. Most of the new villages established under emergency conditions during and immediately after World War II, especially in the Negev, were kibbutzim. By the establishment of independence, they numbered 149 out of the 291 Jewish villages in the country.

The Original Character of the Kibbutz The kibbutz was a unique product of the Zionist labor movement and the Jewish national revival. It was not conceived theoretically as an escapist or utopian project; it was developed by Jewish workers inspired by ideas of social justice as an integral part of the Zionist effort to resettle the homeland. From its inception, the kibbutz movement played a pioneering role in the economic, political, cultural, and security activities required to carry out that purpose. The movement was composed of people from different countries and backgrounds, and of varying political beliefs. Some communities were inspired by A.D. *Gordon’s ethical Jewish identification with nature and of physical labor as the supreme human value. Others cherished the tradition of the *Gedud ha-Avodah of the early 1920s, which regarded itself as a militant constructive task force. Others, again, do not regard themselves as a part of the socialist movement, while a number of kibbutzim (mostly organized in Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati) have been established by religious Jews and combine communal life with the fulfillment of the laws of the Torah. In the early 1950s differences of opinion over Marxist theory and support for pro-Soviet policies led to a split in HaKibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad, and one section joined with Ḥ ever haKevuẓ ot to form Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-ha-Kibbutzim. Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir, believing that the kibbutz as an economic unit could not be divorced from its political ideals, regarded itself as a political unit as well. Over the years, each of the federations was associated to a greater or lesser degree with one of the Israel parties. With the passage of time, many of the initial differences between one type of kibbutz and another disappeared. Most of the small, purely agricultural ones grew and established industries, and the differences between the small kevuẓ ah and the large kibbutz vanished. With the intensification of Soviet hostility to Israel, the attitude to the U.S.S.R. ceased, to all intents and purposes, to be a dividing factor, especially since the Six-Day War. There was an increasing trend toward inter-kibbutz activity and cooperation in all spheres, ranging from education to the economy. The movement was supported from its inception by Zionist and Israel government agencies with long-term leases of national land, technical advice, development projects, and long-term financing. Through a special corps, *Naḥ al, com-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

121

In 1948 and 1949 the momentum of kibbutz expansion continued: out of 175 new villages founded during the two years, 79 were kibbutzim. The Jews from Muslim countries and survivors of the Holocaust who arrived in enormous numbers during the early years of the state were not favorably disposed to the kibbutz idea, however, and most of them preferred to settle in *moshavim. Youngsters born or brought up in Israel, including the second or third generation from older kibbutzim and graduates of *Youth Aliyah and Israel youth movements, became more prominent among the founders of new kibbutzim, especially in the Negev and, after the Six-Day War (1967), in the Golan Heights.

kibbutz movement

posed of youth movement graduates, the Israel Defense Forces trained nuclei of future kibbutzim and helped in their establishment. Sites for new kibbutzim were chosen in the light of national settlement and defense policy, often at the expense of economic viability. Many of them were in border areas and played an important part in the regional defense system. Organization In the classic model, the basis of kibbutz administration was a weekly general meeting of the membership, which formulated policy, elected officers, and superviseed the overall working of the community. Candidates for membership were usually accepted after a year’s probation. Kibbutzim were incorporated cooperative enterprises, and generally speaking members transferred all assets, other than personal effects, to the kibbutz. If a member decided to leave he was entitled to his personal effects and, in line with a later decision of the movement, to a cash grant proportional to the time he had been in the kibbutz. Uniform national bylaws governing individual rights in the kibbutz were approved. Affairs of the kibbutz were conducted by elected committees, the principal one being the secretariat, which usually consisted of a secretary, treasurer, chairmen of some of the key committees, the production manager, and others. There were committees in charge of education, cultural activities, questions of principle and personal problems of members, economic planning, coordination of work, and nominations. Elective positions, including managerial ones, were rotated every year or two. The kibbutz federations provided financial assistance to their member villages through independent loan funds and national negotiation with financial and governmental institutions. They offered technical advisory services ranging from economic analysis to the planning of communal kitchens and laundries. Central purchasing and marketing services cut costs for individual kibbutzim and a special department dealt with kibbutz-based industry. They operated their own psychological clinics for children (including a school for disturbed children) and, in cooperation with institutions of higher learning, offered courses in specific branches of technology, agriculture, and kibbutz management. Cultural activities ranged from movement-wide choirs and amateur orchestras to regional schools for adult education on a non-university and university level. The kibbutz federations were joined together in Berit haTenu’ah ha-Kibbutzit (“Kibbutz Movement Alliance”), which coordinated their activities in the many areas in which they cooperated. The three major ones jointly operated Israel’s largest teachers’ training college – Seminar ha-Kibbutzim. Each federation operated an ideological center, where seminars were conducted, and published bulletins and journals of letters and opinion. Berit ha-Tenu’ah ha-Kibbutzit established a company for the production of television material on kibbutz topics. Each federation negotiated with its kibbutzim for manpower for general movement activity, not only within the movement itself but in the Zionist and labor

122

movements and in government service. There was an increasing degree of regional cooperation cutting across federation boundaries. This included regional secondary schools, youth and cultural activity, and large regional economic and industrial complexes – including plants for canning, poultry slaughtering and dressing, packing and fodder preparation, cotton gins and large silos, trucking and hauling cooperatives, and large regional garages. Social and Educational Aspects The kibbutz movement believed in personal labor and placed equal value on all kinds of work. In the course of time people took up more or less permanent jobs, but there was a great deal of work mobility. With economic expansion and the increasing technical complexity of the kibbutz economy, it became necessary in many instances to hire outside labor in contradiction to the movement’s socialist principles. It was hoped to solve this problem in the course of time with increased population and efficiency. Another problem which the movement tried to solve was the absorption of the increasing proportion of members who pursued academic or professional careers, often outside the kibbutz, while retaining their membership. The kibbutz provided a complete spectrum of services to its members, ranging from razor blades to housing and from honeymoons to financial aid for dependents living outside, with complete medical coverage. Each kibbutz had a communal dining hall, laundry, and tailor shop. With the rise in the standard of living, increasing allowance was made for individual tastes and for spending in accordance with personal inclination on clothing, furnishings, cultural activities, hobbies, vacations, and so forth. Up to 1970, in all but some dozen kibbutzim children lived in children’s houses, which included sleeping quarters and play and study rooms, where community living was taught from the very earliest age. They were part of an organized children’s community, living, eating, and studying together; in some ways they constituted a miniature kibbutz, conducting their own affairs, with the advice of teachers and group leaders, and in many kibbutzim operating their own small farms. Children “graduated” from one house to another as they advanced in age. Mothers – especially, of course, when nursing – visited their children frequently during the day, and after work the children were with their parents. People working with children were trained in kibbutz-sponsored courses, ranging from intensive three-month seminars to full-fledged kindergarten and teacher training. The kibbutz school differed from the city school in its emphasis on agriculture and on work as an integral part of the curriculum. It was considered an extension of the children’s society, so that the teacher-pupil relationship was close and informal. All kibbutz children continued through secondary school; the increasing number who intended to go on to higher education were prepared for the matriculation examinations. A number of kibbutzim, principally among those belonging to the Iḥ ud, changed the system to provide for children sleeping in the homes of their parents. ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kibbutz movement

tablished institution, it was still demonstrating a capacity for changing with the times.

Advocates of the change believed that it enhanced the psychological security of the child, as well as improving the position of the woman and the family in the kibbutz. The effect of the kibbutz and its educational system on its children has been extensively studied. Research has not shown significant indications of maternal deprivation, though some psychologists have found some signs of this at the younger ages. They feel, however, that this was overcome at a later age by the powerful supporting environment. There were some kibbutzim in which the third, and in a few even the fourth, generation had reached maturity, and a goodly number in which the kibbutz-born had become the dominant group. Through 1970 over 75 of the latter remained in the kibbutz, despite the attraction of the cities. Though only 4 of the total population of Israel, their percentage among army officers was three or four times as high. A quarter of all the casualties in the Six-Day War were soldiers from kibbutzim. More direct and practical than their parents, and less given to hairsplitting ideology, it was the young people who were the principal force pushing toward the ultimate unification of the movement. Some sociological studies have shown that although there was no material basis for social stratification, elements of such stratification did exist on the basis of social prestige or kinds of work. There were some differences in personal possessions as well, due to outside sources of income such as gifts, reparations from Germany, or inheritances, which were not always handed in to the kibbutz in their entirety, though very large sums of money received by beneficiaries of reparations were handed over to the kibbutzim. Women were disappointed at times in their relationship with the kibbutz community. The idea of freeing women from household chores so that they could work at other tasks was one of the prime aims of the movement, but this became increasingly difficult as a kibbutz grew older and pressure was generated for increased work in child care and household services. Kibbutzim attempted to improve the personal and family status of women by improving physical conditions of work in the services, by raising the work level of a profession through training and study, and, in some cases, by reducing working hours for women with families. The kibbutz movement was a major factor in the activities of the Zionist movement and the State of Israel. Its influence was both moral and practical, ranging from settlement and security functions (including settling new areas after the Six-Day War), to the absorption of immigrants and Youth Aliyah children, and the provision of leading personnel for Zionist and government service. The number of kibbutz members in the Knesset and among army officers was far beyond their proportion in the population. This influence is indicated by such diverse statistics as the fact that in 1970 its production accounted for 12 of Israel’s gross national product, and that more than 20 members of the Knesset were kibbutz members. In the late 1960s the movement was increasing in size at the rate of about 2–3 a year. Although it had become an es-

Iḥ ud ha-Kevuzot ve-ha-Kibbutzim Iḥ ud ha-Kevutzot ve-ha- Kibbutzim (Heb. “Union of Collective Settlements”) was founded in 1951 through the unification of Ḥ ever ha-Kevuẓ ot and Iḥ ud ha-Kibbutzim, which had split off from Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad (see below). In 1969 it comprised 81 communities, with a total population of about 30,000. Ḥ ever ha-Kevuẓ ot was the federation of the smaller, purely agricultural collective settlements, many of whose members believed in the ethical socialist concepts of A.D. *Gordon, and most of whom belonged to *Mapai, the Israel Labor Party; it included such long-established villages as *Deganyah and *Geva. The Iḥ ud ha-Kibbutzim settlements also leaned toward Mapai. The Iḥ ud was considered the most liberal of the three major kibbutz federations, allowing for more diversity and imposing less social or political discipline. In 1970, for example, children slept in the parents’ homes in more than a dozen of its villages, though most of the other kibbutzim regard the dormitory system as a part of the movement’s educational methods. A number of Iḥ ud kibbutzim also allowed for more latitude in the spending of personal funds. In 1953, the non-socialist kibbutzim of *Ha-No’ar ha-Ẓ iyyoni, associated with the Independent Liberal Party, joined the Iḥ ud on condition of educational and political autonomy. Each kibbutz elected its representatives to the national executive, and the national secretariat consisted of members drafted from the kibbutzim. The movement operated a loan fund, purchasing services, and departments for economic planning and assistance, social and ideological problems, education, youth work, military security, manpower, and immigrant absorption. It delegated members for work in youth movements both in Israel and abroad, in Zionist and political affairs, in the labor movement, and in government service. It conducted a variety of seminars and courses in cultural and technical subjects. It cooperated with the other kibbutz federations in operating Seminar ha-Kibbutzim for training teachers, and at its convention in 1969 it decided actively to encourage university education for members. The kibbutzim conducted their own elementary schools and regional secondary schools, attended in some areas by children from moshavim and Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad communities as well. The movement published a weekly bulletin, Iggeret laḤ averim (from 1951); a quarterly journal, Niv ha-Kevuẓ ah (from 1930); a bimonthly journal of opinion, Shedemot (from 1948); and a periodical for educators, Iggeret le-Ḥ innukh (from 1952). It organized regional and national cultural activities, such as discussion circles and the federation’s choir. The youth of the movement was affiliated as a group to *Ha-No’ar haOved, the Histadrut’s youth section. The Iḥ ud had a special relationship with a number of youth movements in Israel and abroad, sending youth workers to them and receiving rein-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

123

kibbutz movement

forcements from them. Among these are Ha-No’ar ha-Oved, Ha-Ẓ ofim (see *Scouts), *Iḥ ud ha-Bonim, and La-Merḥ av. [Moshe Kerem]

Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arzi-ha-Shomer ha-Za’ir Founded in 1927, comprised 73 kibbutzim and two *Naḥ al outposts in 1969. Its ideological basis was a belief in the kibbutz as an instrument for fulfilling the Zionist ideal, furthering the class struggle, and building a Socialist society. Its founding members, who belonged to the *Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir (“Young Guard”) youth movement, came from Poland and Galicia in 1919, and in 1920 established the movement’s first kibbutz, which settled at *Bet Alfa in 1922. By 1927 there were six Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir kibbutzim, four of which founded Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i. In the 40 years that followed, the population of its villages grew from 249 members and 19 children to over 31,000 persons, of whom some 16,000 were members and 10,000 children. Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i (“The National Kibbutz [Movement]”) regarded the kibbutz as an autonomous unit of social life, comprehending all spheres of economic, social, cultural, political, and educational activity, which were developed on principles laid down by the movement as a whole – both as an instrument for the realization of Zionism, the class struggle and the building of Socialism, and as an end in itself: the archetype of the Socialist society. Through continual democracy in all fields, the movement strove to develop a common outlook on life that united all its members (the so-called “ideological collectivism”). Its ideology was founded on pioneering Zionism paving the way for mass aliyah, the kibbutz way of life, integration of settlement work with political activity, Jewish political independence combined with Jewish-Arab cooperation, and the defense of Israel’s security coupled with unremitting efforts to achieve peace. From the start, Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i favored a union of all workers, including those in the cities, based on Zionist pioneering and Socialist principles. Since such a union failed to materialize, a Socialist League was formed in 1936 as its political partner. In 1946 they combined to form the HaShomer ha-Ẓ a’ir party, which, in turn, joined with two other groups in 1948 to found *Mapam, the United Workers’ Party, of which Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i with its constituent kibbutzim was an integral part. Members of Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i played a prominent part in the struggle for Jewish independence. They formed the first Tower and Stockade settlement, Tel Amal (Nir David) in 1936; many of them joined the supernumerary police, the Jewish units in the British army, and the Jewish Brigade; and they made an important contribution to Aliyah Bet (*”illegal immigration”) and the founding of the *Palmaḥ . Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i regarded the education of its members’ children as a matter of central importance. It trained them for active and creative participation in collective life, employing youth movement traditions and progressive educational methods. There were independent children’s commu-

124

nities, covering the first six years of schooling, in almost every kibbutz, as well as 25 schools serving the kibbutzim, with youth communities covering the 7t–12t school years,and a teachers’ training seminar at Givat Ḥ avivah. The aim of the movement’s educational institutions was to inculcate a general philosophy of life, and not mere booklearning. Some 4,800 of their alumni became kibbutz members and in 1967 the first group aiming at the formation of a new kibbutz was founded. Members of the older kibbutzim served an additional year in newer kibbutzim after completing their army service. Although Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i had as its primary objective the development of agriculture, most kibbutzim started up industrial plants. In 1968, the movement’s agricultural output was valued at IL 168,000,000 ($48,000,000), or 9.9 of agricultural output in the country, and the industrial output at IL 98,500,000 ($28,000,000). Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i published various periodicals for its members. It maintained a publishing house, Sifriat ha-Poalim, founded in 1931, which had issued about 1,000 books by 1970, and the Moreshet Institute for research on the Holocaust, established in 1962. The highest authority in Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i was the triennial convention, which had committees that meet annually. The convention chose an executive council, which appointed a secretariat. Younger members had their own sectional organization. [Yaakov Arie Hazan]

Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uhad Founded in 1927, Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad (“The United Kibbutz [Movement]”) was a national organization of kibbutzim united by a common concept of the kibbutz and a common approach to the building of a labor society in the Land of Israel. The ideology of the movement was based on the following principles: the kibbutz should be a large settlement, with no predetermined limit to the number of members; it should be open to all comers and should not restrict itself to the graduates of any particular youth movement; it should engage in all forms of essential production, both agricultural and industrial; it should play a role in the integration of newcomers to the country by aiming at a membership representing a wide range of geographic origin. The first kibbutz with these aims was En Harod (founded in 1921 by *Gedud ha-Avodah, “the Labor Legion”) and when the Kibbutz Me’uḥ ad movement was founded, at a conference in Petaḥ Tikvah in 1927, it was based on En Harod, groups of newcomers, and local youth from the moshavot. Other kibbutzim joined in 1929, and a second conference, held at Yagur in 1936, further elaborated the movement’s principles. It exercises authority over the kibbutzim of the movement in matters of ideology, each kibbutz being autonomous in administration and finance. From its foundation, it regarded Yiẓ ḥ ak *Tabenkin of En Harod as its spiritual and ideological leader. During the Mandatory regime Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad played a large part in the defense of the yishuv, the organization of “illegal” immigration, and the struggle for independence, with a special role in the creation and maintenance of the Palmaḥ . The movement’s kibbutzim ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kibbutz movement

were scattered all over Israel, and it prided itself that their location had always been determined by the country’s pioneering needs. Thus the first Jewish settlement to be established on the Golan Heights after the Six-Day War was founded by Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad, conforming to the principle, adopted at the 1955 conference held at Givat Brenner, that “the natural borders of Ereẓ Israel are those of the historic homeland of the Jewish people, and this is the area for aliyah, settlement, and the realization of the Zionist program.” Most of the movement’s members belonged in the 1940s to the left-wing faction of Mapai. When the latter split in 1944, Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad was the nucleus of the newly formed Si’ah Bet (B Faction), later *Aḥ dut ha-Avodah, which joined with Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir in 1945 to form Mapam, though a minority remained in Mapai. Owing to the fact that its members came from a variety of youth movements, there was never a dearth of internal political and social controversy in the movement and its kibbutzim. Differences came to a head as a result of the growing intensity of the struggle between Mapai and Mapam and the decision of the Mapai minority to set up its own cultural and educational institutions. At a meeting of the movement’s council, held at Na’an in 1951, kibbutzim with a Mapai majority seceded and formed Iḥ ud ha-Kibbutzim, which joined with Ḥ ever ha-Kevuẓ ot to form Iḥ ud haKibbutzim ve-ha Kevuẓ ot. Four kibbutzim (one of them En Harod itself), which were evenly divided between Mapai and Mapam, were each split into two separate settlements. Members of Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad have figured prominently among the founders and leaders of the Israel labor movement and the Haganah, officers in the Israel forces in the War of Independence, authors and artists, Knesset members and cabinet ministers. Always a strong advocate of the unification of the labor movement, it supported the formation of the Israel Labor Party, which was joined by practically all its members. Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad had a chain of economic enterprises and cultural and social institutions: Keren ha-Kibbutz and Mishkei ha-Kibbutz, its major financial and economic instruments; Efal, a center for higher education and leadership training; Mi-Bifnim (“From Within”), an ideological quarterly; and Ba-Kibbutz, a weekly. It also published periodicals for youth and others dealing with education, culture, etc. Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad publishing house issued 700 original works up to 1968. The movement maintained a museum and research center for the study of the history of the Holocaust, Beit Yiẓ ḥ ak Katznelson, at Kibbutz *Loḥ amei ha-Getta’ot, and an art museum, Ha-Mishkan le-Ommanut, at En Harod. In 1968 it comprised 58 settlements, with a population of some 25,000. One of these, Givat Brenner (population 1,604), was the largest kibbutz in the country. In the 1960s the population of the settlements grew by an average of 3.5 per year. The area under cultivation was 12,500 acres (50,000 dunams), and the number of industrial enterprises was 45, with a turnover of about IL50,000,000.

Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati (Heb. “The Religious Kibbutz”), the union of *Ha-Po’el ha-Mizrachi kibbutzim, was established in 1935 by four religious pioneer groups consisting of members of Baḥ ad (see *Mizrachi)-Ha-Po’el Ha-Mizrachi from Germany and the Mizrachi Pioneers from Poland. Most of its development took place before Israel’s independence. Seven pioneer groups were founded before 1940 and another nine before 1948. Ten groups were able to establish kibbutzim: three in the Beth-Shean valley (Tirat Ẓ evi, Sedeh Eliyahu, En ha-Naẓ iv), three in the Hebron hills (Gush Eẓ yon), three in the neighborhood of Gaza (Be’erot Yiẓ ḥ ak, Sa’ad and Kefar Darom), and Yavneh. Two more were founded in 1948 – Sheluḥ ot in the Beth-Shean Valley and Lavi in Lower Galilee. Six of the villages, which were situated at the edge of the Jewish area in a completely Arab district, were totally destroyed during the War of Independence and many of the adult population were killed. They were reestablished later, three of them as *moshavim shittufiyyim. After a lengthy period of stagnation, most of the religious kibbutzim recovered in the 1960s and numbered among the most flourishing in the country. One new kibbutz, Alummim, was founded in 1966, and at the end of 1967 Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati had 11 member settlements with a total population of 4,000, including Naḥ al outposts on Mount Gilboa and at Kefar Eẓ yon. PRINCIPLES. Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati was based, from the beginning, on the idea of combining religious practice with labor – Torah va-Avodah. Its founders believed that the best means to this end is the communal group, within the framework of which the community can carry out religious precepts in daily life; this attitude was in contrast to the general view of Ha-Poel Ha-Mizrachi of the time. While implementing the general kibbutz principles of communal production and consumption, equality, self-labor, and pioneering, it also emphasized the importance of Jewish religious tradition. Its religious socialism was founded on prophetic concepts of social justice and talmudic principles of human relations and good government; as regards their attitude to contemporary problems, its way was that of religious socialism. It regarded democracy as a basic value of the kibbutz, and not merely as a corollary of equality. In its view, communal ownership was important not only for economic reasons but as an expression of religious and human attitudes.

[Shlomo Derech]

PUBLIC ACTIVITIES. Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati aimed at establishing a self-contained religious society as a major instrument for bringing about religious renewal under present conditions of national renascence and the resettlement of Ereẓ Israel. It developed an approach of its own to the celebration of Independence Day, army service for girls, public prayer, shemittah, and so forth. It aimed at establishing groups of kibbutzim in the same area, with a view to developing regional activities in education and economy in accordance with its principles. Ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati influenced public life in Israel in various ways: it was among the founders of *Youth Aliyah

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

125

kibbutz movement

and of various religious youth villages, yeshivot, and other educational institutions, and it provided help and guidance for the *Bnei Akiva youth movement. Politically, it expressed its independent view within the frameworks of Ha-Po’el haMizrachi and the *National Religious Party, having been instrumental in the establishment of La-Mifneh, the left-wing faction in these movements. The association published a journal, Ammudim (called Alonim 1938–49, Yedi’ot ha-Kibbutz ha-Dati 1951–56), which appeared monthly and was devoted to questions of the religious public and the state, apart from purely internal affairs.

More than in the past, this period posed the question of whether and how it was possible to realize the communal and egalitarian values upheld by the kibbutz in the conditions of a large and complex society which had become increasingly heterogeneous and more similar to the surrounding nonkibbutz society.

The Beginnings of Change The period commencing in 1977 was particularly significant because of a series of events that had unusual importance for the kibbutz movement. The first event was the political upheaval of 1977, in which the Labor Alignment – to which the decisive majority of kibbutzim belonged – lost control of the government, which it had held in various coalitions since the establishment of the state. The change in the political conditions had far-reaching effects in many areas of the kibbutz: these were felt only several years later. In an apparent paradox, the years of the Likud government, 1977–1984, were a period of rapid economic growth and development in the kibbutz movement. However, at the end of this period an economic crisis began, with social consequences within the kibbutzim themselves. According to some analyses, the sources of their subsequent problems are to be found in the long-term consequences of the economic policies carried out by the Likud government. The political changes also sped up the processes of change in the structure of the kibbutz movement, which culminated in the unification of the Iḥ ud ha-Kibbutzim and the Kibbutz haMe’uḥ ad movements in the United Kibbutz Movement (UKM Takam in Hebrew). One of the main justifications for the unification was the necessity for the creation of a large and united kibbutz body which would aid in renewing the labor movement and in influencing the general Israeli society. As a basis for understanding these events, three structural developments, which had previously taken place within the kibbutzim, must be noted: (1) The kibbutzim were no longer small, rural, communal farms, but were now large settlements, with a varied economic base, with several generations born and living there, plus new members from all over the world. (2) There was a transformation from almost complete dependence on agriculture as a source of income to a complex economic formation, integrating agriculture, industries of many kinds, educational and service systems, and connections to large and powerful local and national economic and financial institutions, both in and outside of the kibbutz movement itself. (3) A noticeable rise occurred in the standard of living in the kibbutzim, which made possible the meeting of more varied material and personal needs, even as it raised expectations in those areas.

GROWTH PATTERNS. During this period there was relatively fast growth in the kibbutz population. Between 1976 and 1986, it grew from 98,800 to 126,700 people. This was an increase of 28.2, which was much greater than the rate of growth during other periods after the establishment of the state (from 1950–1960 the growth was 16.4; between 1960 and 1970, 7.7; and from 1970 to 1976, 7.9). The rate of growth of the kibbutz population in this period was greater than that of the rate of growth of the Israeli population as a whole (21.1), and even more so when compared to the rate of the Jewish population (17.9). This was a change from the pattern which had existed from after the establishment of the state, where the rate of growth of the Jewish population was much greater than that of the kibbutzim. This change was mainly a result of the large waves of immigration in the 1950s and 1960s, which caused the share of the kibbutz within the total Jewish population to fall from its height of 7.4 in 1947 to only 3.3 in 1970. The turnaround of this tendency in the 1980s was reflected in the small, but significant rise in the kibbutz share of the Jewish population to 3.6. The rate of growth of the kibbutz population was also much faster during this period than that of the moshavim, which grew only by 10. The moshavim – the second major form of cooperative settlement – grew much more quickly than the kibbutz after the establishment of the state, because the vast majority of the mass immigrations which were sent to agricultural settlements were directed to them. The moshav has been traditionally based largely on individual agricultural holdings worked by a single family as its source of income, while maintaining some limited forms of communal, social, and economic cooperation. This form of settlement was considered more suitable for absorbing the waves of immigrants who came from North Africa and the Middle East in the 1950s. The growth of the kibbutz population slowed in 1986. Apparently this was connected with the economic crisis that had overtaken the kibbutz movement and whose effects were especially felt at the end of the period. The vast majority of the kibbutz population (more than 85) were members of the kibbutzim and their children. In addition there were children from outside and youth groups who were being educated in the kibbutz; groups of young people receiving training prior to their joining the kibbutz or setting up a new one; students at special schools for learning Hebrew and groups of young men and women from abroad working in the kibbutz in order to learn about its way of life. The sources for the growth in membership of the kibbutzim have changed during the different stages of development

126

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

[Moshe Unna]

kibbutz movement

of the kibbutz movement. Before the 1960s few of the children of the kibbutz had reached the age at which they might join the kibbutz as members – this would be in their early twenties, after finishing their army service. Most of the members of the kibbutzim were immigrants, mostly from Europe, and a few who were born in Israel or had come from North or South Africa or from Middle Eastern countries. From the 1960s the proportion of kibbutz-born children rose significantly among those joining the kibbutz. Among those coming from outside the kibbutz, from the 1970s an increase occurred in the proportion of young people who applied for membership without having gone through the traditional path of the youth groups connected to the kibbutz movements. These youth movements originally developed independently, principally in Eastern Europe, and continued with the guidance and help of the kibbutz movements, which saw in them a major source for growth. According to figures from one kibbutz movement (Kibbutz Arẓ i), during the decade of 1970–1980, kibbutz-born individuals made up 38 of those joining the kibbutz, and young people who came out of the youth movement or who were educated in the kibbutz made up 26, while those who came from outside the kibbutz, but were not in the youth movement, were the largest source of growth comprising 44. Statistics from the other kibbutz movements were not available. However, there is reason to believe that the situation was similar. The proportionate weight of different groups in the growth of the kibbutz was dependent not only on their weight among the joiners, but also on the rate of those now leaving the kibbutz. Each of the groups had a different rate of leaving the kibbutz. The highest relative leaving rate was that of people coming out of the youth movement, particularly the Israeli branch. As a consequence the proportion of the three different groups in the net growth of the kibbutz in this decade was as follows: children born in the kibbutz – 43; graduates of the youth movement – 13; and absorbees without movement background – 44. The group of absorbees without movement background was not homogeneous in its make-up or motivation for joining. They joined in large part through marriage to people born in the kibbutz, and they were thereby connected indirectly with internal sources of growth of the kibbutz. (Boys and girls from the same kibbutz tended not to marry among themselves; the majority of marriages were with people from outside the kibbutz movement.) Another group of those without movement background were graduates of the ulpanim for learning Hebrew or volunteers from abroad. There were also young families from the city who chose the kibbutz way of life. Unlike the past, the kibbutz movements made special efforts in the 1980s to encourage absorption from among the latter element by means of advertisements in the mass media or by special programs aimed at certain communities. Evidence of the rise in the importance of internal growth may be seen from a comparison between the natural growth

and the “migration balance” (the ratio between those staying and leaving among those who came from outside the kibbutz) as factors in the increase in the total kibbutz population. During the entire period from 1950 until 1975, natural increase was the only source of growth, while the migration balance was negative; the number of those who left was greater than those who joined the kibbutz from the general society. Of course, some of the kibbutz children left and some of the absorbees stayed on, but the latter were so few as to be unable to account for any significant part of the population growth. The relatively low percentage of absorbees staying reflects the process of selection and choice involved in joining a cooperative society whose way of life is essentially different from that on the outside. Starting in 1975 this pattern changed, and, in most years through the 1980s, the number of those joining from the outside was greater than that of those leaving. However, in this period, too, natural increase remained the main source of growth. This was despite the higher rate of death in these years due to the relative aging of the kibbutz population. The large share of internal sources in the growth of the kibbutz stems also from the relatively higher rate of birth in the kibbutz compared to other sectors of the Jewish-Israeli society, which will be dealt with below. The kibbutz population was originally younger than the general population, since it was established by homogeneous groups of young people. Within this decade, in the older kibbutzim which were founded in the 1920s and 1930s, large groups of the founders passed the age of 70, or even of 80 and 90. In some of these kibbutzim the members over 65 make up a quarter or more of the population. However, in the total population of the kibbutzim the percent of this stratum reached only 9.2, and this was slightly lower than that of the Jewish population in Israel, 10.1. The percent of the kibbutz population in the younger age groups was also greater than is found in the general Jewish population (in the age group from 0–14, it is 30.3 in the kibbutz vs. 19.9 in the city; and for the age group 15–24, it is 19.1 vs. 16, respectively). In general, then, the kibbutz population was younger than that of surrounding Jewish society. There was, nevertheless, importance in the age distribution in the individual kibbutz. In some kibbutzim the existence of a large group of aged created problems that demanded new solutions. When the first members in the older kibbutzim reached the age of retirement, they came to a decision, which was later taken in all the kibbutz movements, that these older members would not stop working at this fixed age. Later on, a decision was reached that specified a gradual reduction in the daily norm of work hours (the standard was eight hours per day), starting at the age of 50 for women and at 55 for men – down to four hours a day, at the age of 60 for women and 65 for men. Most of the oldsters worked until a very old age, and research findings show that there was a positive influence on their mental health from the continuing activity. The kibbutz took care to develop suitable places of work, appropriate for

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

127

kibbutz movement

the skills and capacities of the older members, yet many continued to work in their previous work places. In general the work of the older people made an economic contribution of real significance. The extended family, with children and grandchildren in the same community, was an important supporting element in the process of aging, along with the development of welfare institutions and services which dealt with health and rehabilitation problems (cases of members being sent to old people’s homes were very rare). These conditions led to a much longer life expectancy in the kibbutz than in other societies. At the age of 50 life expectancy for men in Israel was an additional 25.7 years, while in the kibbutz 28.3 and for women in Israel 27.9 and in the kibbutz 31. The average in 64 other countries in 1980 was 23.5 for men and 27.3 for women. It seems that in addition to the social support within the family a major factor was the contribution of the communal framework. Furthermore, it has been noted that in the kibbutz there is no difference in the death-rates for married and unmarried people, while in other societies there is a higher death rate for unmarried people. Different age-structures as found among various kibbutzim was only one of the many differences among them in the area of demographic characteristics. One crucial difference between kibbutzim resulted from the different sizes of their population, connected in many cases with when they were established. While in 39 kibbutzim, most of them young, the number of members was less than 100, in the 16 largest kibbutzim the number of members was over 500. However, in only four of these large kibbutzim were there more than 700 members, and in only one did the number approach 1,000. The total population in a single kibbutz community that includes in addition to adult members also children and temporary groups varies between less than 100 and more than 1,500. Patterns of growth occurred in almost all the kibbutzim in this decade, but the rate of growth was higher in the younger settlements than in the older kibbutzim. In the older kibbutzim the internal growth was augmented by absorbees from the outside, who did not come from a movement background. In contrast the growth of the younger kibbutzim was based more on graduates from the youth movement and to a certain degree also on young people who had left the older kibbutzim where they had been born. From 1967 to the late 1980s, around 50 new kibbutzim were set up, mostly in the Galilee and Negev areas, continuing the traditional trend of settlement distant from the metropolitan center (51 of kibbutzim were concentrated in the north and 20 in the south of Israel). As a result of government policy that favored settlement in the West Bank over that in other areas, the settlement activity of the kibbutz movement ran into difficulties during the decade and had to be partly financed by the movements themselves. Some of the newer settlements did not achieve social stability. Up to this period almost all the new settlements had

been set up by graduates from the youth movements who went to them immediately after their army service.

128

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

CHANGES IN THE ROLE OF THE FAMILY. During the period under discussion the process of the strengthening of the family continued within the social structure of the kibbutz. In addition, there were other tendencies that appeared. The beginnings of the process of enhanced importance of the family date back to the 1950s and 1960s. and found expression in the kibbutz’s demographic patterns: a rise in the birth rate, low rates of divorce, and a low marriage age. There were also effects in the social and institutional areas. At the social level there appeared the extended family of several generations: in the same community would be found, besides the parents of the older stratum, the families of their children, and in the senior kibbutzim, the families of their grandchildren. In the oldest kibbutz therefore, four generations of the same family might be living together in the same community. This phenomenon was in contrast to the pattern outside the kibbutz of intergenerational mobility, geographic, occupational, and social. In the institutional area, expression of the strengthening of the family took the form of demands which arose in different kibbutzim for a transfer of authority in both the educational and consumption fields from the kibbutz institutions to the individual families. The most obvious example was the demand that the children spend the night in their parents’ homes, and not in the children’s houses as was standard in the past. This issue raised stormy arguments in many kibbutzim before the final decision was taken. Until the early 1970s only one kibbutz movement (the former “Iḥ ud”) gave legitimacy to this change. However, during the 1980s, the changeover was completed in almost all of the kibbutzim of the United Kibbutz Movement. The demand to have the children sleep in their parents’ homes also came up in the kibbutz movement which had always opposed this move. As a result of pressure from members/parents, approximately one-quarter of this movement’s kibbutzim were already in different stages of the changeover during the 1980s. The process of the changeover to having children sleeping at home developed in parallel with other symptoms of the strengthened status of the family, mainly in the area of consumption. At the same time efforts were made to strengthen the cohesion of other groups (work groups, age groups) besides the extended family. The growing importance of the family in the kibbutz contradicted prevailing tendencies within Western society to weaken its status. On the other hand patterns similar to the more general direction began to appear in some areas of kibbutz demography. With larger groups of kibbutz-born children reaching the stage of parenthood in the 1960s, there appeared a significant rise in the rate of birth in the kibbutzim and for the first time they surpassed the rates prevalent in the general Jewish population. During the period from 1965 to 1975, the

kibbutz movement

birthrate of the kibbutzim was 26.8 per thousand, compared to 23.4 per thousand for the total Jewish population. From 1974 onwards a sharp change appeared in this pattern, and the birthrate went down from 28.6 to 22 in 1984, which was only slightly higher than that of the general Jewish population (21.6 per thousand). A movement in the opposite direction appeared in regard to the divorce rate. From 1965 until 1975, there were lower rates of divorce in the kibbutz than in the past, and they were similar to those in the general Jewish society (less than one percent). From 1975 the rate went up from less than one percent to 1.4, which was greater than that prevailing in the society at large. There was also a rise in the age of marriage. While in the early 1970s many young adults married close to the end of their military service, it now became more popular to marry after a long trip abroad or after studies. In any event, the family continued to play a more central role in the area of social relationships and this despite the fact that it had no economic function and its educational authority was relatively limited, even after the children began to sleep at home. The family did not have a defined formal status in the kibbutz since kibbutz membership was individual. The strengthening of the family resulted from the weakening of the overall social bonds in the kibbutz, with the growth and differentiation of the population. Furthermore, the family provided a kind of personal refuge from the intense communal life. These familial tendencies also expressed a desire for privacy and, sometimes, individualistic tendencies. On the other hand it would seem that the family appeared also as a framework bound up with obligations that might limit the freedom of the individual. This was evidently the significance of the rise in the divorce rate and the delaying of the marriage age. CHANGES IN THE ECONOMIC AND OCCUPATIONAL STRUCTURE. The economy of the kibbutz went through many rapid changes in the 1980s. The process of industrialization, which began to accelerate in the 1960s, continued at a fast pace, and in most of the kibbutzim industrial operations employed more workers than agriculture and the income from industry was greater than that from agriculture. In 1986, 25.5 of the kibbutz’s active population worked in agriculture versus 5.2 of Israel’s active population; 22.7 versus 24.6 worked in industry. Nevertheless, the agricultural output continued to rise during this period, but at a rate slower than the growth of the industrial output. The agricultural output of the kibbutz movement grew by 30.8 and in 1986 accounted for 39.7 of the Israeli total, while the industrial output grew by 73.4 and made up 6.8 of the total Israeli product. The relative increase in the role of kibbutz agriculture in overall Israeli output took place during a period in which many crises hit the agricultural sector. Besides a deterioration in the export conditions and for various agricultural products, such as cotton, flowers, and citrus fruits, the change in the government’s policy had a negative effect on Israeli agriculture as a whole. In some periods the agricultural planning was dras-

tically curtailed and surpluses were formed, causing a fall in prices which badly hurt many farmers and certain branches of agriculture. The conditions under which credit and loans were given were made more difficult, with extremely high interest rates, far above the norm in the West, and research and development activities were limited. Kibbutz agriculture was affected relatively less than other sectors of agriculture partly due to professional and organizational advantages which accrued to the large kibbutz farming operation and partly due to capacity to balance the damage to agricultural income by means of the income from other branches, particularly industry. The data from the agricultural census of 1981 give evidence of the more efficient use of labor and capital in the kibbutz, especially as compared to the moshav. Kibbutz agriculture continued to concentrate on those crops which demanded less manual labor and progressed in its process of modernization by introducing computers in different areas, for example, control of the field crop’s irrigation and of the nutrition of dairy cows. Those branches in which the majority of production was in the hands of the kibbutzim were cotton, apples and bananas, fish ponds, potatoes, and the raising of cattle for meat and milk. However, the principal economic efforts concentrated on the development of kibbutz industry. In contrast to their dominant position in agriculture, the kibbutz enterprises made up a relatively small sector within Israeli industry in the mid-1980s: 5.8 of the workers, 4.8 of the plants, and 6.8 of the production. From this it can be seen that the average number of workers per plant was greater in the kibbutz. However, about half of those employed in Israeli industry worked in plants with more than 300 workers, while in the kibbutzim, most workers were concentrated in plants with fewer than 100 workers. The smaller size of kibbutz plants stemmed from the tendency to base operation principally on kibbutz members alone. In the early stages of kibbutz industrialization, it was thought that, in order to succeed in the competition of the larger market, the number of workers could not be limited to just those who were available from the kibbutz workforce, and some kibbutz industries hired a relatively large number of workers from the outside. Most kibbutzim opposed this tendency and decided to avoid setting up plants which were labor-intensive; they specialized in plants that were relatively capital-intensive and with a high level of modern technology. An example of this type of operation was the plastics branch of the kibbutz industries, whose production made up 45 of the total Israeli output. Other areas in which the kibbutz sector constituted more than the average of kibbutẓ industries were wood and furniture (18.3) and metalworking (10.6). The avoidance of hired labor and the focus on industrial branches based on high technology became the general direction of kibbutz industry in the 1980s, in which a relatively large number of new plants were set up (73 of the 335 total). At the same time, there was a constant decline in the proportion of hired

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

129

kibbutz movement

workers within the kibbutz industry workforce from 43 in 1975 to 28 in 1986. In the 1980s the introduction of advanced technology became a rapid process, including the use of computerized numerical control (CNC) and the use of industrial robots. It seems that the introduction of advanced technology in kibbutz industry was significantly faster than was the case in similar industries in the general Israeli society. This is supported by the fact that 60 of all the industrial robots in Israel were to be found in kibbutz enterprises. The capital and technological intensity of the kibbutz industries and its special organization and social structure seem able to explain the difference in the accomplishments in various areas between kibbutz industry and the other sectors of Israeli industry. For example, between 1976 and 1986 the index of exports grew in the kibbutz industries from a base of 100 to 364 in contrast to the growth of Israeli industry as a whole to an index level of 224. The index of sales per worker was 20 more for the kibbutz than in the general industrial sector, and, in the plastics branch, this index was 25 higher than in Israeli plastics industry overall. The capital investment per worker was also higher in the kibbutz industries, and, with the advent of the economic difficulties that appeared after 1983, criticisms were voiced asserting that the investments in industry were too high given their decreasing rate of return. There were other problems in regard to the direction of the development of kibbutz industry which arose with the economic crisis. Some critics asserted that the relatively small size of the kibbutz plants limited their capacities for research and development and for proper marketing operations and that there was a lack of the necessary experts in the technological professions. Efforts were made to build up systems of research and development and those for marketing to be shared by kibbutz industrial plants in the same production branch, and steps was taken to improve and encourage technological education and training. Throughout the decade there was a remarkable rise in the level of education of kibbutz members, especially the younger ones. In 1972, only 20.4 of kibbutz members had post-secondary education, while in 1985, the rate had risen to 32.3 of the kibbutz members. This was considerably higher than the level of the general Jewish population in Israel, which stood at 24.4. There was an important difference in the distribution of the level of higher education, however. In the kibbutz there were fewer people with higher degrees, while the percentage of people with post-secondary training in the fields of education, technology, and social services was much higher than that of the overall Jewish population of Israel. The difference in regard to holders of higher university degrees (i.e., M.A. and doctorate) stemmed from the fact that only in the 1970s did the kibbutz movement free itself of ideological opposition to the acquisition of university degrees and begin to encourage academic studies. Thus in the 1980s the proportion of holders of academic degrees grew at the same time that the repre-

sentation of kibbutz members on the teaching and research faculties of the institutions of higher learning also increased. Along with the contribution made by people with academic degrees to the economic and social capacities of the kibbutz, problems caused by the unsuitability of the kibbutz work structure, based on work in agriculture, industry, and the services, to the academic qualifications of its members arose. Most of the jobs simply did not demand the high level of education acquired by college graduates, and this created conflicts with their expectations and desires for professional advancement. A labor market did not exist in the kibbutz because there were neither the wages nor economic incentives or sanctions which operate in the general society to direct people into the different occupations in some relation to supply and demand. This made the coordination between the changing needs of kibbutz society and economy and, on the other hand, the professional and academic aspirations of the members more complicated than ever before. Decisions about the economic structure were made democratically at the general assemblies and in the committees and were thereby influenced by the preferences of the members. The other side of this relationship was that the professional plans of the members were themselves influenced by the present and/or expected occupational structure, although increasing numbers of young and old members chose courses of academic studies which seem to have no direct connection to the kibbutz’s expressed economic and educational needs. The 1980s saw changes as a result of the rising level of education and of the rapid technological advances, but the economic crisis of the kibbutz movement also had very important effects in this period. Different factors contributed to the development of the crisis, expressed principally by the formation of a large debt accompanied by high interest payments, which weighed heavily on ongoing economic activities. This occurred despite the successes in the fields of both industry and agriculture. The major cause of the crisis was the lack of economic stability that characterized the Begin years and was most obviously reflected in the rates of hyperinflation which ran rampant from the late 1970s until the mid-1980s. From 1978 to 1984, the rate of inflation jumped from 51 a year to 445! As a result of the government’s economic program in the mid-1980s, there was a sharp drop to an approximately 20 rate of inflation per year, which was accompanied by an even steeper rise in the cost of money, i.e., the interest rate, which rose from 11.8 in 1983 to 89 in 1985. Besides these outside factors, financial mistakes were made by the kibbutz movements and by individual kibbutzim, which invested in unsuccessful business ventures, in speculative stocks, or in consumption projects. The economic crisis was especially damaging to those kibbutzim that had not been successful in their attempt to balance the decline in the profitability of agriculture with an increase in their industrial activity. This had the added effect of exacerbating the inequality among the kibbutzim. For example, in the United Kibbutz

130

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kibbutz movement

EQUALITY AND DEMOCRACY. The cutbacks in spending, including the member’s personal yearly budget, gave rise to demands in some kibbutzim for a larger share of the kibbutz’s total budget to be given to the individual member and his/her family (such as clothing, shoes, furniture, and vacation allowances). This would have entailed a corresponding cutback in public spending, such as for communal dining, education, health, etc. For the first time suggestions were made to allow members to increase their budgetary income by working extra hours in branches that suffered from a manpower shortage. In a similar vein, a far-reaching demand was made by a new settlement group, Si’on, which had recently joined the UKM and was heading for Kibbutz Bet Oren, which was on the verge of dissolution after passing through an extended social crisis. The group proposed that they would work five days a week in the framework of the kibbutz work regimen, but that

on the sixth day each member would decide whether to work and make extra money which could be used as one pleased or to take the day off. All proposals linking extra work to additional income had met with firm opposition by the movement’s institutions, and this was the fate of Si’on’s proposal: they were told that they would have to give up their plan as a condition for being accepted into the kibbutz federation. The reason for such severe opposition to these kinds of proposals was the principle of separation between the obligation of the kibbutz to satisfy the needs of each member and the amount and quality of the work done by that member. It is precisely this principle which distinguishes the kibbutz from other forms of communal living. The absence of a link between the function a member fulfills in work or public activity and his or her standard of living and opportunities made it possible to prevent or, at least, to limit the processes of social stratification and polarization. These processes had occurred all too often in egalitarian organizations and had caused the dissolution of cooperative communities in the past. The simultaneous processes of industrial development, economic expansion, differentiation in levels of education and administration, and the increased importance of the family in the kibbutz social structure created conditions that would appear to encourage stratification. Various studies had shown the existence of differences among members in regard to their influence on kibbutz life and in regard to the esteem in which they were held within the community. At the material level, some members had access to private sources of income from outside the kibbutz, as a result of inheritances, presents from family, and so forth. Nevertheless, one could not point to the crystallization of groups benefiting from special rights or privileges in contrast to other groups who were relatively discriminated against or disadvantaged as a unit. Another important factor in minimizing stratification was the maintenance of the pattern of rotation of leadership and management functions among the membership of the kibbutz and the movement as a whole. The continued operation of the rotation principle was aided by the fact that, although those holding managerial positions have greater power to influence issues during their term, they do not achieve a higher standard of living. In addition they must deal with many difficulties in fulfilling the responsibilities of their positions, due to which they were generally unwilling to continue in their demanding jobs for long periods of time. In addition there were many members active on the various committees which were responsible for the organization of diverse areas of kibbutz life. In most kibbutzim there was a general assembly every week, although in some cases it was held every two weeks. There were great differences between the kibbutzim in regard to the number of people participating in kibbutz discussions. There seemed to be more participation in those kibbutzim with a higher level of social cohesion and in which the democratic idea was more highly regarded. However, even in kibbutzim where the general assembly was not so

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

131

Movement, the group of 19 kibbutzim in the most difficulties had to use 38 of their yearly income just to pay the interest on their debt, while another group of 38 kibbutzim had to earmark 25 of their income for interest payments; the majority of the kibbutzim, 83 in number, had to earmark only 6.6 of their yearly income for interest payments. In an attempt to overcome the crisis and to make possible the continuation of production operations, the United Kibbutz Movement asked the government for help, not for grants but to restructure its loan repayment schedules. This request made the issue of help to the kibbutzim the focus of a political debate, where representatives of the Likud took advantage of this situation to criticize the kibbutz movement while putting pressure on the Labor party, to which the UKM is affiliated. Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i, which also was in need of additional sources of funding, preferred to mobilize capital on a commercial basis, essentially without government intervention, by means of bonds issues, which avoided dependence on the political system. The requests of the UKM for aid were only approved in part, after many delays and after a public political campaign by the kibbutz and moshav movements. Even before the public aid could come, the kibbutzim strengthened their apparatus of mutual support. The kibbutzim which were economically stronger were helping the weaker ones both by giving them loans from the movement’s trust funds, which were funded by means of a progressive tax on the kibbutzim, and by providing guarantees for loans taken out by the weaker kibbutzim. At the same time all the kibbutzim decided to lower their standard of living, regardless of their economic situation. This took various forms, such as not allowing trips abroad or kibbutz-financed vacations, lower spending on food in the communal dining room, and reducing the number of members sent to study, etc. All of these cutbacks were even more harsh in those kibbutzim in the worst shape, where even their autonomy in day-to-day expenses was severely curtailed. Parallel to these moves, cutbacks in capital spending, particularly in such area as apartments and public buildings, were made.

kibbutz movement

highly esteemed as an institution, proposals to replace it with some form of elected council were met with opposition. In one kibbutz it was actually decided to stop convening the kibbutz assembly, but after a year and a half its meetings were reinstituted. The reason for this is probably that, in a society in which so many of the vital issues in one’s private life, such as educational opportunities, personal consumption, and living arrangements, were determined by the community, members were unwilling to give up their right to participate in making such decisions, even if they do not often make use of this right. The kibbutz assembly still had the supreme authority in determining policy in the kibbutz, even though many specific decisions were reached in the committees and only brought before the assembly for ratification. However, the assembly had the authority to overturn any decision of a committee, and each member had the right to bring up any issue for discussion in the assembly. Some aspects of the running of the assembly had changed, and certain issues, especially regarding individuals and families, were voted upon by secret ballot, and in the larger kibbutzim, referenda were conducted outside the kibbutz assembly. The existence of participatory democracy in all areas of life, together with the maintenance of cooperative consumption, which made possible the separation of the needs of members from their contribution at work or in other activities, had forestalled the emergence of elite social strata. Nevertheless, this was not enough to prevent the continued existence of a certain degree of gender inequality, whose roots were in the division of labor according to sex. Most of those working in the productive branches are men, while in the services and in education mostly women are employed. This inequality exists despite the fact that there is complete economic equality, and membership in the kibbutz is on an individual basis, not familial, as is the case in the moshav. In the past this inequality had expressed itself by the fact that the productive branches had a higher status than the service branches, which were discriminated against from the point of view of budgets and manpower. Later the inequality took the form of the more limited opportunities for women to choose the work that they prefer, which stems from an assumption that work in the services and in education is the main responsibility of women. Women’s lack of experience in economic management, which was usually acquired in those productive branches from which women were largely excluded, was a factor in their low level of representation in managerial positions, such as economic manager, treasurer, or industrial plant manager, all of which are positions with much authority in the running of the kibbutz. In the 1980s, the awareness of women of the existing inequality was heightened, although in earlier periods inequality was also considered a deviation from the values of the kibbutz. In both Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i and in the United Kibbutz Movement departments for “Sexual Equality” were set up and worked to increase awareness of the issue, to encourage women to enter professions commonly defined as “for men only,” and, conversely, to encourage men to go into those

CHANGES IN KIBBUTZ EDUCATION. The greater importance of the family in the kibbutz, the increased involvement in the system of higher education, and the changes in technology and occupational structure caused fundamental changes in the kibbutz educational system. The greatest change, which was accompanied by much debate, was the changeover to having children sleep at home instead of the children’s houses. A few kibbutzim made this change in the 1950s and the 1960s, and it became a legitimate way of life in the former Iḥ ud ha-Kibbutzim movement. However, only in the 1980s did most of the kibbutzim of the United Kibbutz Movement (which includes the above lḥ ud with the former Kibbutz ha-Meuḥ ad) adopt the new system, while in Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i it was given only limited and conditional legitimacy. In the past sleeping in the children’s houses was seen as an integral part of the education, where the children’s house served as an all-encompassing center for the child, while the parents’ home had only a supplementary function. Gradually awareness of the crucial role played by the parents in the educational process grew, and the proponents of home sleeping arrangements saw the changeover as another step in this direction, which, first and foremost, expressed the desire of parents. In contrast to this approach, those who opposed having the children sleep in their parents’ homes asserted that the change in sleeping arrangements would affect the all-embracing character of kibbutz education, which would turn the children’s house into merely a “day care center” and would curtail the responsibility of the educators. Other justifications for maintaining the old system were voiced: The change would exacerbate sexual inequality because additional burdens and responsibilities would be placed on mothers. This would in turn have a negative effect on their kibbutz jobs, limit their opportunities for further study, and especially limit their participation in community activities, whether administrative or social. The growing number of kibbutz-educated children applying for higher academic studies raised the issue of changing the policy of the kibbutz movements, which had previously opposed the high school matriculation tests necessary for entry into Israeli universities. The opposition to these tests was directed at the achievement orientation and competitive factor of the tests, and, in some kibbutzim, the opposition was connected to an unwillingness to introduce graded tests. The opposing view wanted to keep the emphasis on the development of internal motivation to study, on supportive peer opinion as a source of motivation, and on the development of the capacity for independent study in each child.

132

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

areas of education and services traditionally the domain of women. Overall, there was some progress in the proportion of women fulfilling public positions like secretary of the kibbutz or head of a committee, and the number of women working in industry rose, but there was no meaningful improvement in other areas, particularly those having to do with economic management.

kibbutz movement

At first an arrangement was reached with the universities in which a graduate of a kibbutz high school would have to do a preparatory course, usually about a year long, before entering the university. However, due to the difficulties involved in this arrangement, which was only designed to be a temporary solution, almost all the kibbutz schools started to prepare their students for the matriculation certificate, if the students wanted one. In conjunction with the change, efforts were made to preserve the special social foundations of the kibbutz high school by means of an increased emphasis on values and socialization. Almost all the kibbutz high schools were regional institutions, taking in students from several kibbutzim and sometimes from moshavim and also other children sent there for various reasons. In Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i the high schools were also boarding schools (several days of the week) in order to achieve an all-embracing secondary school framework. On the other hand, the primary schools were, until the mid 1980s, based in each individual kibbutz, integrated into the life of the community. However, due to the relatively small size of these schools and as part of the policy of the Ministry of Education, a process began of joining together the primary schools of neighboring kibbutzim and making one area day school. The establishment of the area schools, both primary and especially secondary levels, raised anew the question of the integration of the kibbutz schools with those of the surroundings, the development towns and the moshavim. Despite the desire of the kibbutzim to maintain their independent framework, which was needed in their opinion in order to educate their children to their special values and way of life, some move in the direction of inter-community integration occurred. A number of schools were set up with the participation of moshavim, arrangements for cooperation with schools in development towns were made, and the absorption of youth groups, often from deprived backgrounds, within the kibbutz schools, continued and were even expanded. Nevertheless, the argument continued between those who favored greater integration to break down the barriers between kibbutz children and other sectors of the population and those who demanded the maintenance of the independent kibbutz framework. As part of the effort to strengthen the commitment to education for kibbutz and movement values of both youth and adults, the 1980s saw an energetic expansion and utilization of the kibbutz institutions for higher education, which were intended for high school students and for academic studies and research. In the first centers, Efal and Givat Ḥ avivah, the range of courses of study were broadened, and research departments were established. The Ruppin Institute, for the training of agricultural and industrial workers and managers, and Oranim, the school for training teachers, and the Kibbutz Seminar in Tel Aviv reached various forms of academic recognition. At the University of Haifa, there was the Institute for Research on the Kibbutz and the Cooperative Idea, which also ran a large number of courses in kibbutz studies in coordination

with the Sociology and Anthropology departments. In some areas, at the initiative of the kibbutzim, local colleges were set up to provide academic level studies for the members of the surrounding kibbutzim and moshavim. These were usually connected to universities and the course credits went towards earning a college degree.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

133

THE KIBBUTZ AND ISRAELI SOCIETY. The question of regional cooperation and integration in the field of education was only one aspect of the complex relationships between the kibbutzim and the surrounding settlements, mainly developmental towns and moshavim. The major issue in these relations was their economic connections where the kibbutzowned regional enterprises had an important function in the area’s pattern of employment. These plants whose major task was to process the agricultural produce of the local kibbutzim, employed many hired workers from among the area residents. However, most of the administrative and managerial posts were held by members of kibbutzim. In most areas the moshavim had their own separate regional enterprises. The speed of the development of the area enterprises can be seen from the growth of the number of employees from 5,000 in 1977 to 7,300 in 1982. Afterwards, the rate of growth slowed, partially because of the crisis that hit agriculture all over Israel and also due to a decline in investments, which had already begun during the first period of fast development. In some areas, e.g., Bet Shean and Kiryat Shemonah, the regional plants became a focus for tensions between some of the hired laborers from the development towns and the kibbutzim, which were exploited for political purposes. Particularly during election campaigns, fierce attacks on the kibbutz movement appeared in the local and national media, which in turn produced widespread effects and responses in Israeli society. Subsequently, all the sides involved made efforts to improve their relations. The local residents were interested in the continued activity and development of the area enterprises as a source of employment, whose importance increased as unemployment rose. From the point of view of the kibbutzim, steps were taken to improve labor relations, to expand the possibilities for advancement for the hired workers, and to push for their participation in profits and in management. Through the initiative of the Histadrut, a program for regional cooperation was developed, which included the encouragement of social and personal connections and joint cultural activities among all the residents of the area. The relations between the kibbutz and development towns were only one part of the striking changes in the status of the kibbutz within Israeli society as a whole in the 1980s. The most significant change was in the political sphere, when the Likud won the elections for the first time in 1977, and the Alignment (the Labor Party and Mapam), to whom the kibbutz movements were tied, entered the opposition. The quantitative expression of the decline of the political status of the kibbutz movements was in the sharp fall in the number of kibbutz members elected to the Knesset, who usually got there via the

kibbutz movement

Alignment. Their number dropped from 20 in the First Knesset, to 16 in the Eighth Knesset, which was elected in 1973, and down to eight in the elections of 1977, which brought the great change in Israeli politics. This situation did not change in the Tenth Knesset, despite the improvement in the Alignment’s number of seats, and in the Eleventh Knesset there were nine kibbutz members, three from Mapam, four from the Labor party, one in the Citizens’ Rights Movement, and one in the Teḥ iyyah party on the right. The decline in status of the kibbutz representatives in the Knesset, as part of the general weakening of the workers’ parties, was also reflected in the makeup of the government. Until the upheaval of 1977, there were always a number of ministers who were members of kibbutzim, some of them in central positions, like Yigal Allon and Yisrael Galili, Haim Gvati and Shlomo Rosen. There were no kibbutz members in the Likud governments and only one in the National Unity government. This decline in the power and representation of the kibbutz movement was to be found also in other national frameworks. However, the proportion of kibbutz members in certain areas of national leadership, such as the higher levels of command in the army, in leadership of the Histadrut, and in its Ḥ evrat Ovedim economic operations, was still much higher than their proportion of the general Jewish Israeli population. The kibbutz movement also had an influence in various social and cultural areas beyond its numerical weight. The major youth movements, such as Ha-No’ar ha-Oved ve-haLomed, the Scouts, Ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ air, etc., were all connected to and supported by the kibbutz movements. There were also various cultural projects, like the Tzavta clubs and various publishing enterprises which were aimed at the general public of the cities and towns. Despite these achievements there was a definite decline in the status and prestige of the kibbutz in the eyes of the general Israeli public and a corresponding lowered self-image on the part of kibbutz members in regard to the kibbutz’s contribution and role on the national level. It seemed that, in contrast to the clearly high status of the kibbutz before the establishment of the state and in its first years, there arose a lack of consensus about the role which the kibbutz was to fulfill in Israeli society and the state. In the beginning the kibbutz was seen as a pioneering body which fulfilled central tasks in the building up of the people and of the state, such as settlement, defense, and the organization and absorption of immigration, both legal and “illegal.” The first changes in this role occurred with the establishment of the State of Israel when many functions previously undertaken by the kibbutzim were transferred to the responsibility of government bodies. In the period after the war of 1967, there seemed to be renewed importance in the kibbutz movement’s settlement role, but, after the ascendancy of the Likud, there was an increasing tension between the Likud government’s policy of almost exclusive priority to settlements in areas of Judea and Samaria with a dense Arab population and the policy of the kibbutz movements which preferred settlement within the pre-1967 area of Israel.

Certain pronouncements and actions of the Begin-led Likud governments contributed to the creation of an image for the kibbutz movement as just another special-interest group seeking to preserve and strengthen its economic and social positions. The right-wing of Israeli politics sought to minimize the defense, settlement, and social functions which the kibbutzim continued to fulfill. This negative image was reinforced as a result of the kibbutz movement’s financial speculations and failures and the economic crisis which caused the United Kibbutz Movement to apply for government aid in restructuring its debts. In addition, within the kibbutz movement itself tendencies towards isolation were pronounced in regard to activities and relations with the surrounding society, at both the regional and national level. In regard to relations with the neighboring communities, this was the response to the sometimes virulent attacks made during the elections. In the face of a weakened self-image as a pioneering leader of society and the growing perception of the kibbutz as an element that first and foremost takes care of its own needs and interests, a third direction began to take shape. The new direction placed its emphasis on the continuing connection between the kibbutz and other sectors of Israeli society in order to strengthen the influence of egalitarian and cooperative principles which the kibbutz upheld. Some examples were the following projects, initiated and/or supported by the kibbutz movement: the establishment of “urban kibbutzim,” the plan to set up a cooperative city in the Negev, efforts to reform the producer and consumer cooperatives in the city, and the attempt to support the Histadrut’s program for participation of workers in the management of its industrial and commercial plants and firms. Only some of these projects bore fruit, but they were an indication of an ongoing commitment of the kibbutz to be involved in Israeli society in ways which were compatible and supportive of its own values. The “urban kibbutzim,” in cities and development towns, aimed to taking part in the educational and cultural activities of the residents. The first of these attempts, Kibbutz Reshit (“Beginning”) was located in the Bukhara neighborhood of Jerusalem, and its members were active in various aspects of their community’s life. There were also two more urban communes, in Bet Shemesh and in Sederot. The changes in society’s view of the kibbutz and the lack of consensus about both its public and self-image were reflected in opinion polls. Between 1978 and 1983 the percent of those polled who expressed a positive attitude towards the kibbutz declined from 62 to 52. This was not matched by a rise in those who opposed the kibbutz movement, which remained stable at 8 of those polled, but it reflected a rise in those who were indifferent to it. There was a more positive view of the kibbutz among those born in Europe or America, among the more educated and those who were older. The more those polled knew about the kibbutz, the more positive were their attitudes: however, only 44 said that they were well acquainted with the kibbutz, while 40 had never visited a kibbutz even once.

134

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kibbutz movement

These figures demonstrated the gap between the kibbutz and large segments of the public whose views were largely based on what was said about the kibbutz in the mass media, rather than on first-hand experience. In later, unpublished polls, it seemed that positive attitudes towards the kibbutz were influenced more by people’s attitudes towards the egalitarian and cooperative values embodied by the kibbutz than by the demographic characteristics described above. The changes in the attitude of Israeli society towards the kibbutz as well as the changes in the political system influenced the kibbutz movement’s actions and policies. THE KIBBUTZ MOVEMENTS. From the beginning of the kibbutz movement there have been many splits and amalgamations in the movement’s organizational forms. Before the establishment of the state, the reasons for the existence of separate movements were mainly the different ideological, social, and economic positions regarding the desired structure of the kibbutz. With the sharpening of the political struggles over the shaping of the state’s character after its establishment, the exacerbation of the political debate within the kibbutz movement caused a bitter and painful split in the largest movement at that time, Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad. A substantial minority of members and kibbutzim split off from Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad and formed, with another movement, Ḥ ever ha-Kevuẓ ot, a new movement, Iḥ ud ha-Kibbutzim. This split occurred in 1951, and it involved in some cases the physical splitting up into two separate kibbutzim where there had previously been one large settlement. The two separate movements also were connected to different political parties until the parties’ unification and the two kibbutz movements formally became united in 1979 as the United Kibbutz Movement (UKM). The UKM contained within it 167 kibbutzim as of 1987, with a population of 76,560. For the first time in the history of the movement there were only two large kibbutz movements, the second one being Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i – Hashomer ha-Ẓ a’ir. Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i had 83 kibbutzim with a population of 41,500. The smaller religious kibbutz movement, Ha-kibbutz ha-Dati, had 17 kibbutzim and a population of 7,300. In general the differences that separated the kibbutz movements in the past were decreasing, although there was still some importance attached to traditions of the past. Despite this tendency, Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i maintained its own identity and organization. This was due in part to the fact that this movement went through very few splits in the first 50 years of its existence and was relatively more homogeneous. The movement’s connection to its political party, the United Workers’ Party (Mapam), is collective, and not personal, as in the UKM. Further, Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i placed more emphasis on what it saw as the preservation of the original kibbutz values and ways of life. It more strictly opposed hired labor in the kibbutzim, resisted the transfer of various responsibilities from the kibbutz institutions to the family and upheld special educational approaches, e.g., a regional boarding school during the stage of high school education. Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i invested

more efforts in internal and external, i.e., ideological, activity, and officially supported the *Peace Now extra-parliamentary movement. This movement also maintained a tighter framework for mutual aid, through a “movement tax” among its kibbutzim and for direction of the individual kibbutz’s activities by the movement. Although some of the differences became less marked during the 1980s, there did not seem to be any tendencies towards the surrendering of the independent existence of Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i. This was reinforced by the breakup of the 20-year-old Alignment between the Labor Party and Mapam after the formation of the 1984 National Unity government, as a result of which Mapam tried to reestablish itself as an independent party in the opposition. The two large kibbutz movements, along with the smaller religious kibbutz movement, maintained close cooperation in the framework of the Confederation of the Kibbutz Movements, which represented the kibbutz movement as a whole to outside authorities. There were also national and regional frameworks within which joint activities, economic and cultural, took place. This strengthening of cooperation among the kibbutz movements should have contributed to weakening the separate organizational movement frameworks. But with the onset of the economic crisis in the 1980s, the influence of the national movements was greatly strengthened because they were the link between the external financial sources, whether private or governmental, and the individual kibbutzim. The national movements were the means by which most funds were transferred, and, even when an individual kibbutz arranged some of its own financing, it was the financial guarantees of the movement that induced private institutions to give these loans. Finally, it was by means of the national movements that mutual aid was carried out, whereby the weaker and debt-ridden kibbutzim received help from the better-off kibbutzim or from the debt-restructuring program. It would seem that at this stage inter-movement cooperation based more on ideological and political issues was more significant than regional inter-movement cooperation based more on pragmatic, lower-level economic and social issues. In the 1980s there was widespread interest in the kibbutz experiment on the part of people and institutions outside of Israel. The beginning of this interest started with the rise of new forms of cooperative and communal living and work in various countries around the world in the late 1960s and the 1970s. This interest was expressed in the convening in Israel of conferences representing cooperative communities and enterprises from around the world, the exchange of delegations between the kibbutz and these different groups. There was cooperation in research on egalitarian communities in Israel and abroad, as well as on cooperative, worker-owned industrial or agricultural enterprises. A special project was established for the study of the kibbutz under the auspices of Harvard University in the U.S. There were attempts to learn from the experience of the kibbutz in its response to the challenges of the technological revolution as it might be applied in smaller productive frameworks while maintaining a priority on the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

135

kibbutz movement

quality of the working life and on environmental protection, along with participatory democracy. The interest in the kibbutz experience from the viewpoint of its Jewish significance became another focus of interest. On the one hand the kibbutz had created a value-oriented Jewish way of life which was essentially non-religious and, on the other hand, it formed a bridge between Jewish youth in the Diaspora and Israel. Research has shown that the time spent by young people in a kibbutz contributes more to their connection to Israel than their experiences with other aspects of Israeli society. Based on these findings, new forms of shortterm programs on kibbutzim for young Jews from abroad were developed, in addition to existing kibbutz ulpanim for the study of Hebrew, visits by youth groups for short periods, or programs of study in kibbutz high schools for Jewish teenagers from Europe and the Americas. In sum, the 1980s were a period of many changes in the development of the kibbutz movement. Beginning with an accelerated growth of population and economic progress, a crisis arose in the political and economic situation facing the kibbutzim, which now found themselves in serious economic straits, which had a negative effect on many other areas of the communities’ way of life.

cluding kibbutzim that instituted differential salaries; and a third group including kibbutzim still undergoing change. The economic and social changes in many of the secular kibbutzim, which blurred political differences between the movements, led to the reunification of the United Kibbutz Movement (ukm) and Ha-Kibbutz ha-Arẓ i ha-Shomer haẒ a’ir into the Kibbutz Movement in 2000. The new Kibbutz Movement represents 260 kibbutzim. Its aims include protecting the rights of the kibbutzim, assisting kibbutzim under change, and remaining involved in the larger Israeli society.

The New Kibbutz The severe economic crisis faced by the kibbutzim continued into the 1990s. The reasons for the crisis were many: some linked it to changes in Israeli society and the shift from collectivism to individualism; others pointed to internal problems, such as inefficiency and old-fashioned industries and farming techniques, segregation from the wider population, and demographic decline. However, the visible mark of the crisis was the difficulty individual kibbutzim and the kibbutz organizations had in paying their debts. As a consequence, money owed to the banks increased significantly, especially after the government raised interest rates to curb inflation. Despite the government’s agreement to restructure the debt, many kibbutzim faced difficulties that led to a momentous change in their way of life. Many of the kibbutzim instituted changes that distanced them from the traditional kibbutz model but helped them survive the crisis. Among those changes was the separation of industry from the kibbutz, provision of services to the nonkibbutz population (such as swimming pool facilities, apartments to let, etc.), encouraging members to find work outside the kibbutz, hiring nonkibbutz workers, differential salaries among kibbutz members, privatization of services (utilities, food, rent, etc.), new neighborhoods for nonmembers built by private contractors on kibbutz land, and less centralized administration. All these changes moved the kibbutzim from the traditional model to something resembling ordinary community life. Almost all the kibbutzim adopted some of these changes. Today there are three categories of kibbutzim: the collective kibbutz including around 30 kibbutzim that chose to preserve the traditional model; the community kibbutz in-

DEMOGRAPHIC PATTERNS. During the 1990s the kibbutzim faced for the first time a decline in population. In 2002 the kibbutz population comprised 1.5 percent of the overall population in Israel. From 1997 to 2002 population figures declined by 2 percent. The permanent population declined by 9, but this figure was compensated for by temporary residents who rent apartments in the kibbutzim. This decline was reversed in 2003, when for the first time after 19 years the kibbutz population began to grow again. This growth is related to the new way of life in the kibbutzim today, which is more private and less collective. Other reasons relate to the fact that many Israelis prefer to live in a rural community with good educational facilities, so that the new kibbutz neighborhoods are an attractive option. The decline in population was also due to the aging of the kibbutz population and a sharp decline in birth rates. From 1998 to 2002 there was drop in the number of kibbutz children from 28,606 to 24,055. While in 1998 there were 1,142 births in the kibbutzim, the figure dropped to only 730 in 2002. A major reason for this can be found in the fact that many kibbutz youngsters had left the kibbutz after their army service. Another reason has to do with the general trend toward smaller families out of economic and social considerations, enabling parents to give their children more attention and material benefits. The decline in the child population directs attention to the main problem of the kibbutzim, namely the aging of the population. The average age of the adult kibbutz population was 55 in 2003 (it was calculated as the mean from 30 up, since most of the population under 30 are temporary residents), compared to the national average of 52. The 25–45 age group in the kibbutzim is proportionately smaller than in the overall population, while the 45+ group is proportionately higher. This means that a small group of working people is responsible for a larger group of older people. This situation is a cause of concern in the kibbutz movement and the kibbutzim invest much effort to attract younger people, e.g., by building the new neighborhood for non-members who wish to live in rural settlements. The average kibbutz varies from 300 to 400 residents. There have been voices calling for the creation of larger communities of 1,000 to 1,500 residents. These communities will come about by uniting neighboring kibbutzim or by the absorption of newcomers.

136

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

[Menahem Rosner]

kibbutz movement

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. Kibbutz agriculture is based on field crops, fruit plantations, dairy cattle, poultry, and fishery. The revenue from agriculture was quite stable between 1997 and 2002, amounting to IS 5 billion in 2002, representing about a third of national farm revenue. Kibbutz agriculture accounted for 70 percent of field crops, 40 percent of livestock, and 20 percent of plantations. Kibbutz industry includes the following: rubber and plastics; food; metal and machinery; textiles and leather; printing, paper and cardboard; electronics and electricity; construction materials; wood and furniture; and other branches. Kibbutz industry had a 7.5 percent share of the country’s industry in 2002, five times its share in the population. The contribution of kibbutz industry to the GDP was 6.5 percent in 2002. The kibbutz plastics industry had a 51 share of the industry as a whole. Industrial revenues constituted 70 percent of total kibbutz income. In 2002, kibbutz industry operated 333 factories, employing 27,600 workers and recording sales of IS 17.344 billion, up 7.7 21101. In 1997 gross profit was IS 690 million, dropping to IS 434 million in 1999 but rising to IS 900 million in 2002. A new source of income, in addition to agriculture and industry, was salaried work outside the kibbutz, with individuals bringing in about IS 1 million in 1997 and IS 1.5 million in 2002. In 2002 75 kibbutzim earned more than IS 100 million compared with 108 kibbutzim earning less than IS 50 million. Thus, 30 of the kibbutzim were responsible for 47 of total kibbutz income. This demonstrates the differences between kibbutzim, some being quite wealthy while others face bankruptcy. Figures for the last decade indicate an improvement in the economic situation of the kibbutzim. The total debt decreased from IS 28 billion in 1996 to IS 17 billion in 2002. The improvement can be attributed to the write-off of part of the debt by the government and the economic and social changes that many kibbutzim underwent. Nonetheless, kibbutz per capita income remained lower than the national average. A CHANGING WAY OF LIFE. Since the 1990s the kibbutzim have undergone vast changes in their way of life. The main cause of the changes was the enormous debt of the kibbutzim to the banks. The changes can be summarized under four heads: changes in the personal budgets of kibbutz members; separation of the sources of livelihood from the community; professional management; external committees. DIFFERENTIAL SALARIES. Many kibbutzim adopted a system of differential salaries in place of equal budgets for its members. The new system gives each member a salary based on hours worked, education, experience, etc. The majority of the kibbutzim adopted the “security” model, in which pensioners and the elderly receive fixed salaries from the kibbutz, while the working population is responsible for making its own living. A different system, “the combined model,” is based on quasi-differential distribution that takes into account ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

number of years in the kibbutz and hours worked. The latter system seeks to distribute income in a more equal way. It is worth noting that 93 kibbutzim chose to maintain the traditional model, in which members receive an equal budget. SEPARATION BETWEEN SOURCES OF LIVELIHOOD AND THE COMMUNITY. In this system kibbutz members become shareholders in kibbutz businesses, which are managed outside the community framework, like private enterprises anywhere. PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT. Until the 1990s the kibbutzim were managed by an elected secretariat composed of kibbutz members. In recent years this has changed. Many kibbutzim failed to find suitable candidates from among their members and hired professionals from outside the kibbutz. The manager’s job is to lead the kibbutz into a new era and successfully implement changes. Two-thirds of the kibbutzim were already operating under such management in the first years of the 21st century. EXTERNAL COMMITTEES. A small group of kibbutzim (28) were managed by external committees, given authority to manage the kibbutz when it faced severe crises. The external committee manages the kibbutz for up to a year in order to enable kibbutz members to assume responsibility again. [Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

Into the 21st Century The kibbutz at the outset of the 21st century, which had once represented for many the essence of Israel, was thus far removed from what it had once been, just as Israeli society was. Stripped of ideology, losing its special qualities, it was rapidly becoming another habitat in an environment geared to satisfy personal ambition. Its place, however, in the history of Zionist settlement was assured. Not only did it contribute the sheer muscle power that reclaimed the land, it had also created the ethos that sustained the nation. Without it the Zionist enterprise could hardly have succeeded. Bibliography: GENERAL: A. Bein, The Return to the Soil (1952); Y. Baratz, A Village by the Jordan (1954); M. Weingarten, Life in a Kibbutz (1955); M.E. Spiro, Kibbutz, Venture in Utopia (1956); idem, Children of the Kibbutz (1958); H. Darin-Drabkin, The Other Society (1962); B. Bettelheim, Children of the Dream (1969); J. Blasi, The Communal Future – The Kibbutz and the Utopian Dilemma (1987); K. Bartolke, Th. Bergmann, L. Liegle (eds.), Integrated Cooperatives in the Industrial Society: The Example of the Kibbutz (1980); K. Bartolke, W. Eshwieler, D. Flechsenberg, M. Palgi, M. Rosner, Participation and Control (1985); A. Cherns (ed.), Quality of Working Life and the Kibbutz Experience (1980); M. Gherson, Family, Women and Socialization in the Kibbutz (1978): J. Gorni, Y. Oved, J. Paz (eds.), Communal Life (1987); E. Krausz, (ed.), The Sociology of the Kibbutz (1983); U. Leviatan, M. Rosner, Work and Organization in Kibbutz Industry (1980); Amia Lieblich, Kibbutz Makom (1981); Sh. Lilker, Kibbutz Judaism (1982); St. Maron, The Communal Household (1987); D. Mittelberg, Strangers in the Paradise (1988); M. Palgi, J. Blasi, M. Rosner, M. Safir (eds.), Sexual Equality – the Israeli Kibbutz Tests the Theories (1986); A. Rabin, B. Bettelheim, Twenty Years Later: Kibbutz Children (1981); P. Rayman, The Kibbutz Community and Nation Building (1981); M. Rosner, Democracy Equality and Change: The Kibbutz

137

kibel, wolf

and Social Theory (1982); I. Shepher, The Kibbutz, an anthropological study (1983); B. Shenker, Intentional Communities (1986); Sh. Shur, B. Beit-Hallahmi, J. Blasi, A. Rabin (eds.), The Kibbutz: A Bibliography of Scientific and Professional Publications in English (1981); A. Tannenbaum, B. Kavcic, M. Rosner, M. Vianello, G. Wieser, Hierarchy in Organizations (1974); L. Tiger, J. Shepher, Women in the Kibbutz (1975); A. Zamir, Mothers and Daughters – Interviews with Kibbutz Women (1986). PERIODICAL ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS. Kibbutz Studies; Kibbutz Currents (formerly Shdemot); English publications series of the Institute for Research on the Kibbutz and the Cooperative Idea, University of Haifa. KIBBUTZ ARẒ I: D. Leon, The Kibbutz (1964); E.H. Samuel, The Children’s Community of the Hashomer Hatẓ air at Mishmar Haemek (1962); L. Dror et al. (ed.), Sefer ha-Shomer ha-Ẓ a’ir, 3 vols. (1956–64), passim. KIBBUTZ DATI: M. Unna, Shutafut shel Emet (1965); M. Krone, From Rodges to Yavne (1945); A. Fishman, The Religious Kibbutz Movement (1957); Bnei Akiva, The Religious Kvuẓ ah (1960); J. Walk, in: YLBI (1961), 236–56. Add. Bibliography: Kibbutz Movement Yearbook (Heb., 2003); H. Biur, “For the First Time in 19 Years: Growth in the Kibbutzim Population,” in: Haaretz (July 23, 2004). Website: www.kibbutz.org.il.

KIBEL, WOLF (1903–1938), South African painter. Son of a cantor of Godzisk near Warsaw, Kibel was orphaned in boyhood but his artistic talent attracted the attention of a visiting artist who befriended him. In 1926 he went to Vienna, lived in poverty, but was helped by patrons to obtain some formal training and enabled to go to Palestine where he came under the influence of modern expressionism. In 1929 he emigrated to Cape Town, South Africa. There the strength and individuality of his style and his artistic integrity received quick recognition from fellow artists, but it was only toward the end of his life that his paintings in various media began to find their way into public galleries and private collections. Tinged with the melancholy of his own suffering and the tragedy of his people, Kibel’s work was also marked by a sensitive humanity and joy in the common things of life. His life was a constant struggle against poverty and ill health, and he died in Cape Town of tuberculosis brought on by years of malnutrition. Bibliography: F. Kibel, Wolf Kibel… (1968). [Louis Hotz]

its initial publication indicates its great popularity. While the date of the first edition remains unclear (1555?), the first extant edition is Verona 1595. The number of woodcuts included in the book is little less than astonishing: 83 in 67 folios. With some relatively minor omissions and (anti-liberal) revisions, Moses b. Menassah Eliezer b. Moses Wallich’s Seyfer Mesholim (1697) is a reprint of the Ki-Bukh. Bibliography: M.N. Rosenfeld (ed.), The Book of Cows: A Facsimile Edition of the Famed Kuhbuch, Verona 1595 (1984); E. Katz (ed.), Book of Fables: The Yiddish Fable Collection of Reb Moshe Wallich, Frankfurt am Main, 1697 (1994); J.C. Frakes (ed.), Early Yiddish Texts: 1100–1750 (2004), 415–20, 750–72; J. Baumgarten, Introduction to Old Yiddish Literature (2005), 321–26. [Jerold C. Frakes (2nd ed.)]

KIDD, MICHAEL (born Milton Greenwald) (1919– ), U.S. dancer and stage and film choreographer. Kidd studied at the school of the American Ballet in New York. His debut as dancer was in The Eternal Road (1937). He was a member of the American Ballet and toured with Lincoln *Kirstein’s Ballet Caravan and as a soloist and assistant director of Dance Players before joining Ballet Theater in 1942. He was noted for comic and character roles in Eugene Loring’s Billy the Kid and Jerome Robbins’ Fancy Free. He choreographed his first ballet, On Stage!, in 1945. Over five decades Kidd created winsome and imaginative dances for the Broadway stage and Hollywood musicals. He also choreographed for television, including the television special Baryshnikov in Hollywood (1982). For the movies Kidd choreographed Where’s Charley (1949), Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954), and Hello, Dolly (1969). As he approached his sixtieth birthday Kidd capped a vital career in the theater with superb performances as a comic actor. Kidd received Antoinette Perry Awards for the choreography in the musicals Finian’s Rainbow (1947), Guys and Dolls (1951), Can-Can (1953), Li’l Abner (1956), and Destry Rides Again (1959). [Amnon Shiloah (2nd ed.)]

KIBUKH (“Book of Cows”), anonymous 16t-century Yiddish fable collection. First mentioned in the *Mayse-Bukh (1602) as a morally corrupting book, the collection comprises 35 tales (each accompanied by an explicitly framed “moral of the story”), deriving from two fable traditions: the Aesopic (the sources of which were *Berechiah ben Natronai ha-Nakdan’s late 12t- or early 13t-century Hebrew Mishlei Shu’alim and Ulrich Boner’s Edelstein (1461)) and the Arabic maqama. Most of the fables in the Ki-Bukh are longer than their sources and tend toward humor, earthiness, and an interest in the details of Jewish daily life of the time, while emanating the comparatively liberal tonality characteristic of 16t-century Yiddish literature composed in Northern Italy. The collection provides corroborative evidence of the persistent popularity of didactic fable in the Jewish literary tradition during the period. The condemnation of the book as morally corrupting so soon after

KIDDUSH (Heb. ‫ ִקדּ ו ּׁש‬, lit. “sanctification,” derived from kaddesh (‫ ; ַקדֵּ ׁש‬lit. “to sanctify”)), prayer recited over a cup of wine in the home and the synagogue to consecrate the Sabbath or festival in fulfillment of the biblical commandment to “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8; Pes. 106a). Although women are exempt from performing positive precepts whose execution is bound to a specific time, they are obliged to observe the sanctification of the Sabbath because the Talmud maintains that the phrases “Remember the Sabbath” (Ex. 20:8) and “Observe the Sabbath” (Deut. 5:12) include women. “Whoever has to ‘observe’ has to ‘remember’; and since the women have to ‘observe’ [by performing no work] they also have to ‘remember’” (Ber. 20b). The primary Kiddush is recited on the eve of the Sabbath or festival before the start of the meal, since it is forbidden to eat on these occasions until Kiddush has been recited (Pes. 105a).

138

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kiddush ha-shem and Ḥ illul ha-shem

The text of the current Sabbath Kiddush consists of an introductory paragraph from Genesis 1:31 and 2:1–3; the blessing over wine; and the blessing for the sanctification of the day which concludes with “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who hallowest the Sabbath” (Hertz, Prayer, 409). The introductory scriptural passage is omitted on festivals and only the blessings over wine and over the sanctification of the day are recited. The blessing sanctifying the day for a festival concludes with “Blessed art Thou, O Lord, Who hallowest Israel and the festive seasons” (Hertz, Prayer, 811). The schools of Shammai and Hillel differed as to whether the benediction over the sanctity of the day or that over the wine is recited first (Ber. 8:1). On all full festivals, except for the last days of Passover, the She-Heḥ eyanu blessing, thanking God for having “kept us in life… and enabling us to reach this season” is recited at the conclusion of the Kiddush. When a festival immediately follows the Sabbath, a special benediction celebrating the termination of the Sabbath (*Havdalah) is added. While it is preferable to chant the evening Kiddush over wine (Pes. 107a), two loaves of bread may be used where wine is not obtainable (Sh. Ar., Oḥ 272:9). Although there can be no proper recitation of the Kiddush except prior to the meal and at the place the meal will be eaten, the custom of also reciting the prayer at the conclusion of the Sabbath evening services in the synagogue gradually evolved. Despite the opposition of some rabbis, the practice was defended on the ground that at one time travelers were housed and fed in a room adjoining the synagogue. The travelers therefore discharged their obligation to sanctify the Sabbath through the public recitation of the Kiddush (Pes. 101a). Reciting the Kiddush in the synagogue has been retained only in the Ashkenazi ritual, except in Israel where the Kiddush is no longer recited as part of any synagogal rite. Along with the principal evening Kiddush, the rabbis instituted a minor Kiddush, euphemistically called the “Great Kiddush” (Pes. 106a), to be recited on the morning of the Sabbath or festival before the first meal. This Kiddush consists of the recitation of some biblical verses referring to the Sabbath or festival, followed by the benediction over wine (Hertz, Prayer, 565). When no beverage is available, the prayer is recited over two loaves of bread (Sh. Ar., Oḥ 289:1–2 and Magen Avraham ad loc.). Strong drink other than wine also may be used for the morning Kiddush, as may any beverage which is considered ḥ emer ha-medinah (“national beverage”). For the development of the Kiddush text during the talmudic period see J. Heinemann, Ha-Tefillah bi-Tekufat haTanna’im ve-ha-Amora’im, 37ff., 62. The Kiddush ceremony, an integral part of Orthodox and Conservative practice, has also been retained by Reform Judaism. The Saturday morning Kiddush has often assumed new importance in the modern synagogue since it is often sponsored by the congregation and also serves as a communal social hour.

KIDDUSH HAḤ AYYIM (“sanctification of life”), term first attributed to Rabbi Isaac *Nissenbaum, a Zionist rabbi in the Warsaw ghetto, which sought to differentiate between the classical response of Jewish martyrdom, *kiddush ha-Shem, the sanctification of the Divine Name, and the imperative of the hour, to spiritually resist the Nazis and their intention of annihilating the Jewish people by remaining alive. Nissenbaum wrote: “In the past our enemies demanded our soul and the Jew sacrificed his body in sanctifying God’s name. Now the enemy demands the body of the Jew. That makes it imperative for the Jew to defend it and protect it.” Primo *Levi, the great Italian Jewish writer and survivor of Auschwitz, argued that had the lagers lasted longer they would have had to invent a vocabulary of their own, new words to describe an unprecedented situation. “Our language lacks words to express this offense, the demolition of a man.” That was true not only for life inside the camps but for the unprecedented circumstances of Jews in German-occupied Europe during the time when the “Final Solution” was the operative German policy. Literary students of the Holocaust Lawrence Langer and Terrence Des Pres invented new words to describe what the perpetrators did to their victims. For Langer, the term was “choiceless choices” and for Des Pres “excremental assault.” These were the circumstances in which Jews were placed by the killers. But how were Jews to respond? Two such concepts developed by which the Jews described their own behavior, their own choice of response. Iberleben, the determination to outlive the enemy, to survive and to endure and to deny the Nazis the victory of one more Jew’s demise. For Nissenbaum, the language he chose was religious. He understood that the circumstances were unprecedented and therefore the response required was also unprecedented. It demanded a language all its own. Other rabbis pushed for the same response, but saw it in continuity with the previous tradition of kiddush ha-Shem. Thus, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Goldberg of Zelichowo admonished his Jews: “every Jew that remains alive sanctifies the name of God among many [ba-rabbim].” Nissenbaum chose a new language, in part to stress the uniqueness of the Nazi’s murderous intention. They did not want the conversion of the Jews nor their expulsion, but their annihilation and thus life itself was a form of defiance of their ultimate wish. Israeli Holocaust scholar Shaul Esh termed this “The Dignity of the Destroyed” in an article of that title. Bibliography: S. Esh, “The Dignity of the Destroyed: Toward a Definition of the Period of the Holocaust,” in: Judaism (Spring 1962); J. Rudavsky, To Live with Hope, to Die with Dignity (1987); P. Schindler, “Kiddush ha-Hayyim,” in: Y. Gutman (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990). [Michael Berenbaum (2nd ed.)]

Bibliography: Abrahams, Companion, 139–41, 169f., 194; Idelsohn, Liturgy, 132f., 154; Eisenstein, Dinim, 355f. [Aaron Rothkoff]

KIDDUSH HASHEM AND Ḥ ILLUL HASHEM (Heb. ‫) ִקדּ ו ּׁש ַה ּׁ ֵשם וְ ִחלּ וּל ַה ׁ ּ ֵשם‬. The antithetical terms kiddush ha-Shem (“sanctification of the [Divine] Name”) and ḥ illul ha-Shem (“defamation of the [Divine] Name”) are complementary ant-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

139

kiddush ha-shem and Ḥ illul ha-shem

onyms and denote the two aspects of one of the most significant concepts in Judaism. They imply, respectively, the glorification of the God of Israel and the diminution of His honor. The specific terms are rabbinic; the concepts themselves, however, are biblical in origin and are included among the 613 commandments: “Ye shall keep My commandments and do them: I am the Lord. Ye shall not profane My holy Name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel; I am the Lord who hallow you” (Lev. 22:31, 32). The entire people was subject to these principles, although the priests were especially cautioned to avoid ḥ illul ha-Shem (Lev. 21:6; 22:2).

their sins, relative to their own high standards, is divine kiddush ha-Shem (Sifra to Shemini 45d; Zev. 115b). The sanctification of God’s Name before gentiles was always a potent element in the folk understanding of the concept. The rabbis, however, for the most part, concerned themselves with the active role of man in the drama of bestowing glory upon, or detracting from, the honor of God. This human initiative in kiddush ha-Shem could be consummated in three different ways: martyrdom, exemplary ethical conduct, and prayer.

Rabbinic Literature The rabbinic tradition laid more emphasis on the personalethical than on the national-redemptive significance of the concept. It developed especially the second view of the biblical theme: human initiative, and a wider designation so as to include Jews as well as non-Jews. It could even be performed in private with no one present, as in the case of Joseph who, by restraining himself in the face of temptation, fulfilled the sanctification of God’s Name (Sot. 36b). This does not mean that the rabbis entirely ignored kiddush ha-Shem and ḥ illul ha-Shem as divine acts. When God decided to visit destruction indiscriminately on both the righteous and the wicked of Sodom, Abraham protested that this would be ḥ illul haShem (Gen. R. 49:9). Were God to have permitted Absalom to slay his father David, His Name would have been publicly profaned (Sanh. 107a). The punishment of the righteous for

MARTYRDOM. The readiness to sanctify God’s Name has its most dramatic expression in the willingness to die a martyr, and since tannaitic times the term kiddush ha-Shem also denotes martyrdom (see below Historical Aspects). When a person willingly suffers death rather than violate one of three specific commandments (see below) he achieves kiddush haShem; if he fails to do so in these cases, or in other instances where the halakhah demands martyrdom, he is guilty of ḥ illul ha-Shem (Av. Zar. 27b; Sanh. 74a, b). On the verses, “Ye shall not profane My holy Name,… I am the Lord who hallow you, brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the Lord” (Lev. 22:32, 33), the rabbis taught: “On this condition did I bring you out of the land of Egypt that you submit yourselves to sanctify My Name, that I be your God even by force; I the Lord am faithful to grant you your reward” (Sifra, Emor, Perek 9). Since the second century, “to die for the sanctification of the Name” has been the accepted idiom for dying a martyr’s death. A martyr was, appropriately, called a kadosh, one who is holy. In time, this honorific was extended and applied as well to those who died solely because they were Jewish even without their consciously offering up their lives for religious purposes (Moshe Lamm, Darkah shel ha-Yahadut be-Mavet u-ve-Avelut (2005), 221–222.) A child, growing up in the Jewish tradition, was exposed to the concept of martyrdom as an ideal. From his earliest youth he was taught stories about martyrs, e.g., *Hannah and her seven sons, R. *Akiva and the other of the *ten martyrs; the latter in the form of a lamentation is part of the synagogue service on the *Day of Atonement and on the Ninth of *Av. Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah (Dan. 3) are held up by the rabbis as models of conduct in the sanctification of the Name (Pes. 53b). At the famous rabbinical council in *Lydda (second century), the laws of martyrdom were formulated. Kiddush ha-Shem was declared obligatory in the case of three commandments and a person had to suffer death rather than violate them: idolatry, unchastity (gillui arayot: including incest, adultery, and, under certain circumstances, any infraction of the code of sexual morality), and murder (Sanh. 74a). One should violate all other commandments rather than suffer death. Should a Jew, however, in the presence of ten other Jews, be coerced into transgressing these other laws in order to demonstrate his apostasy, he must sanctify God’s Name and choose death. If ten Jews are not present, he should transgress rather than be killed. These rules hold for “normal” times. In

140

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

In the Bible Two patterns of thought are discernible in the biblical conception of kiddush ha-Shem and ḥ illul ha-Shem. One considers God as the primary actor, while Israel remains passive; the other regards the Israelites as the initiators of either the sanctification or the desecration of God’s Name. The first is fully crystallized in Ezekiel (chs. 20, 36, 39), for whom the sanctification of the Name is essentially an act of the Lord bestowed upon Israel before the onlooking nations of the world. The Name is sanctified when God wondrously redeems Israel and the gentiles behold the vindication of the divine promise and are moved to worship Him. Inversely, if the Lord visits privation or exile upon Israel, or suffers the people to remain in captivity, the nations question God’s strength or faithfulness, and the Name is thus defamed. This general rubric holds true for Ezekiel (with the exception of 20:39) and for most instances of kiddush ha-Shem in the Pentateuch. According to the second view, man is responsible for God’s honor in the eyes of the world. Moses and Aaron were punished because of their failure to sanctify God’s Name (Num. 20:12; Deut. 32:51). God’s Name must be sanctified not only before the gentiles but in the eyes of Israel as well (ibid., and Lev. 22:32). Jeremiah accuses his countrymen of profaning God’s Name when they circumvent the law and emancipate their slaves only to capture and enslave them again (34:16). Amos condemned extortion from the poor and immorality as ḥ illul ha-Shem (2.7).

kiddush ha-shem and Ḥ illul ha-shem

times of religious persecution of the entire community, however, one must choose to die for kiddush ha-Shem even if no other Israelites are present, and one must not violate any commandment, including minor customs which are distinctively Jewish (Maim. Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah, 5:3). Martyrdom rather than violation, when transgression is permissible, became a point of discussion; the halakhah had to decide between two opposing principles – that of sanctifying God’s Name versus that of preserving life (“and he shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5), i.e., the commandments). According to Maimonides, a person who chose kiddush ha-Shem where the law decides for life is culpable (Maim. ibid., 5:1); others consider such voluntary martyrdom praiseworthy (Tos. Av. Zar. 27b). The Ashkenazi talmudists were instinctual rather than rationalistic in their attitude to martyrdom – an attitude characteristic of most of medieval German Jewry. The tosafists reacted negatively to the problem as it is viewed in the halakhah. They recoiled – “Heaven forbid!” – from such formal halakhic reasoning that does not require martyrdom of a person forced to worship an idol in private, and they demanded obligatory kiddush haShem (Tos. Av. Zar. 54a). Among modern halakhic authorities, the question whether an individual should sacrifice his life in order to save the entire community is a point of contention. Rabbi A.I. Kook considered it obligatory as an emergency measure (Mishpat Kohen (19662), no. 143). Others regarded such action as meritorious but not mandatory (J.J. Weinberg, Seridei Esh, 1 (1961), 303–16). The problem arose often during the Holocaust in Europe. In one typical responsum of this period, the question was asked whether (considering the danger to the emissary who might be imprisoned and killed) a particular rabbi should accept his mission of approaching the Lithuanian henchmen of the Nazi authorities in Kovno in 1941 in order to release certain Jews. The answer was that he may not be ordered to accept the mission but he should do so as an act of piety; he did, and subsequently survived (E. Oshry, Mi-Ma’amakim, 2 (1963), responsum no. 1). The same work also includes a discussion on a contemporaneous practical problem: the wording of the blessing to be recited upon being martyred for the sanctification of God’s Name (ibid., no. 4). The question was first raised by R. Isaiah ha-Levi *Horowitz (16t–17t centuries) who initially was reluctant to sanction a blessing over the mitzvah of martyrdom because one should not seek out a situation which would require him to surrender his life. Later, however, he agreed to the blessing over kiddush ha-Shem. The sages of the Talmud were divided in their opinions as to whether gentiles are required to sanctify God’s Name. *Abbaye held that a non-Jew who is forced to violate one of the seven Noachide laws is not obligated to suffer kiddush haShem; *Rava maintained that he is (Sanh. 74b). The accepted ruling is that non-Jews are not required to sanctify the Name (TJ, Shev. 4:3, 35b; Maim. Yad, Melakhim, 10:2). According to some authorities, however, a gentile must perform kiddush ha-Shem rather than be forced to commit murder (Mishneh le-Melekh, to Yad, ibid.).

ETHICAL CONDUCT. The ideal of man’s initiative in sanctifying God’s Name beyond the strict requirements of the law was developed by rabbinic tradition in the area of ethical conduct. When *Simeon b. *Shetaḥ bought an ass from an Arab and his servants were delighted at finding a jewel hanging from its neck, he at once returned the gem to its owner, who cried out, “Blessed be the God of the Jews Who renders His people so scrupulous in their dealings with other men” (TJ, BM., 2:5, 8c). His supererogatory conduct is considered kiddush ha-Shem. Joshua kept his oath to the Gibeonites, though they exacted it from him by fraud (Git. 46a). Moral acts such as Joseph’s restraint in the face of temptation and Judah’s public confession of his relations with Tamar are also considered kiddush ha-Shem (Sot. 10b). The designation of an unethical act as ḥ illul ha-Shem proved a powerful deterrent. The punishment for such is immediate, even if the sin was unintentional (Shab. 33a); it is the most heinous of all sins (TJ, Ned. 3:14, 38b) and only death can atone for it (Yoma 86a). According to R. Akiva, there is no forgiveness at all for it (ARN1 39). In the Talmud, the concepts of kiddush ha-Shem and ḥ illul ha-Shem are discussed with reference to stealing from a non-Jew (BK 113a–b). According to R. Akiva, the law itself prohibits this, and thus protects all property, whether of a Jew or non-Jew. R. Ishmael, however, holds that biblical law applies formally only to the relation of Jews with fellow Jews. The protection of non-Jews, therefore, requires a supplementary principle, that of kiddush ha-Shem. Hence, ethical perfection beyond the minimum standards of the law itself becomes law, that of sanctifying the Name: reflecting honor upon God and the Torah by striving for moral excellence. Although medieval talmudists almost unanimously decided in favor of R. Akiva, they had to use the themes of kiddush ha-Shem and ḥ illul haShem to plug occasional loopholes in the formal law. They often cited the Tosefta (BK 10:15) that stealing from a non-Jew is a worse crime than stealing from a Jew, since the former includes ḥ illul ha-Shem as well as “ye shall not steal.” Kiddush ha-Shem imposes special and exacting standards of conduct on the scholar. He must, for instance, pay his debts promptly, never cause embarrassment to his colleagues, not walk four cubits without tallit or tefillin, and not overindulge in merrymaking (Yoma 86a; Av. Zar. 28a; Maim. Yad, Yesodei ha-Torah, 5:11). While the ethical moment is quite strong in kiddush haShem, the latter should not be interpreted exclusively as moral behavior toward others. Kiddush ha-Shem includes martyrdom for any of a number of reasons: refusing to worship an idol, under certain conditions circumcising one’s son or studying Torah or abiding by the dietary laws. In all these cases, it is not necessarily a question of performance in the presence of non-Jews. The halakhah considers any consciously rebellious act against God as ḥ illul ha-Shem (Maim. ibid., 5:10). The principal motif of kiddush ha-Shem is religious and this includes the ethical dimension; the aim of the latter is not so much to teach the world morality as to increase the respect

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

141

kiddush ha-shem and Ḥ illul ha-shem

of the world for the morality of Judaism (H.G. Friedman, see bibliography). Principally, kiddush ha-Shem seeks to demonstrate to Jew and non-Jew alike the power of the Jewish commitment to God and to Torah. PRAYER. Kiddush ha-Shem also found expression in prayer. This took two forms. One was in a liturgical declaration of readiness to accept martyrdom if necessary: “‘Nay, but for Thy sake are we killed all the day; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter’ (Ps. 44:23). Is it then possible to be ‘killed all the day?’ When one takes upon himself to sanctify His great Name every day, he is accounted as ‘sheep for the slaughter’” (Sif. Deut. 6:5). Similarly, when reciting the *Shema, a person must spiritually intend the readiness to offer himself for kiddush ha-Shem (Zohar, Num. 195b). Second, the recital of the prayer is itself regarded as an act of sanctification of God’s Name. A number of such liturgical expressions of kiddush haShem have been found in the Merkabah literature (G. Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition (19652), Appendix C). Two formal prayers stand out in this respect: the *Kedushah and the *Kaddish. The Kedushah is based on the Song of the Seraphim in Isaiah 6:1–3. The more esoteric Kedushah, recited before the Shema, refers to the praise of God by the angels, while the Kedushah of the *Amidah prayer speaks of Israel sanctifying God’s Name. The more esoteric Kedushah, recited before the Shema, refers to the praise of God by the angels, while the Kedushah of the Amidah prayer speaks of Israel sanctifying God’s Name. The latter is parallel to and perhaps surpasses the Kedushah of the angels, adding a cosmic element to the theme of kiddush ha-Shem. The Zohar (Lev. 93a) considers the key verse “I will be hallowed among the children of Israel” (Lev. 22:32) as the source and warrant for the Kedushah. In the Kaddish, the key parts refer quite literally to the “sanctification” of the “Name.” At a comparatively early period, the Kaddish was already ascribed to the biblical source of kiddush ha-Shem (Zedekiah b. Abraham ha-Rofe, Shibbolei ha-Leket, ed. S.K. Mirsky (1966), 149–50). The absence of any specific Divine Name in this prayer, and the emphasis on the “Name” as such, has been thought by some scholars to have been deliberate, in order to emphasize its idiomatic affinity to the biblical “kiddush ha-Shem.” It has been suggested that the Kaddish was originally recited by martyrs who, at the threshold of death, declared the sanctification of God’s Name and consoled the bereaved onlookers by speaking of the redemption and the Messiah “in your lifetime and in your days” (J. Kaufman, Midreshei Ge’ullah (19542), 58 n. 12, quoting Ḥ .N. Bialik). S.Y. Agnon’s interpretation carries the impact of poetic truth, if not historic accuracy: the orphan’s recitation of the Kaddish (Samukh ve-Nireh, “Petiḥ ah le-Kaddish”), is a kind of consolation to God who sustained a double ḥ illul ha-Shem – His Name both diminished and desecrated by the loss of even a single soldier (who as a human being is irreplaceable) in the legions of the Almighty; hence, the prayer that the injured

142

Name be magnified and sanctified. R. Joseph B. *Soloveitchik writes movingly that “through the Kaddish we hurl defiance at death and its fiendish conspiracy against man. [The mourner] declares more or less the following: no matter how powerful death is … no matter how black one’s despair is … we declare and profess publicly and solemnly that we are not giving up, that we are not surrendering, that we will carry on the work of our ancestors as if nothing had happened, that we will be satisfied with nothing less than the full realization of the ultimate goal – the establishment of God’s kingdom (“Aninut and Avelut,” in: David Shatz, B. Wolowelsky, and Reuven Ziegler (eds.),Out of the Whirlwind: Essays on Morality, Suffering, and the Human Condition (2003), p. 5). [Norman Lamm]

Kiddush Hashem: Historical Aspects The concept of kiddush ha-Shem has thus always been implicit in the Judaic faith and view of life. Its first explicit expression occurred during the confrontation of Judaism with *Hellenism, the first pagan culture with “missionary” and synthesizing tendencies. The Book of Daniel tells about the three “Jewish men” – Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego – who disobeyed a royal command to worship an idol and endangered their lives. Under *Antiochus Epiphanes Hellenization employed violent and coercive methods in regard to Jews. After the victorious revolt of the Hasmoneans, a Jew in the Hellenistic Diaspora recorded the martyrdom of an old man, little children, and their mother who had died for their faith: Eleazar, one of the principal scribes,… of a noble countenance, was compelled to eat swine’s flesh … Now those in charge of that forbidden sacrificial feast took the man aside, for the sake of old acquaintance, and privately urged him to bring some flesh of his own providing, such as he was lawfully allowed to use, and to pretend he was really eating of the sacrifice which the king had ordered, so that in this way he might escape death and be kindly treated for the sake of their old friendship. But he with a high resolve, worthy of his years and of the dignity of his descent … and, still more, of the holy laws divinely ordained, spoke his mind accordingly:… “It ill becomes our years to dissemble,” said he, “and thus lead many younger persons to imagine that Eleazar in his ninetieth year has gone over to a heathenish religion … for the mere sake of enjoying this brief and momentary life … Even were I for the moment to evade the punishment of men, I should not escape the hands of the Almighty in life or in death … I will … leave behind me a noble example to the young how to die willingly and nobly on behalf of our reverend and holy laws.” With these words he stepped forward at once to the instrument of torture, while those who a moment before had been friendly turned against him, deeming his language to be that of a sheer madman…. Under the strokes of torture, he groaned out: “The Lord who has holy knowledge understandeth that, although I might have been freed from death, I endure cruel pains in my body from scourging and suffer this gladly in my soul, because I fear Him” (II Macc. 6:18–30; Charles, Apocrypha, 140).

The basic ideals motivating kiddush ha-Shem are thus set out at this early stage: personal nobility and courage, a categoriENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kiddush ha-shem and Ḥ illul ha-shem

MIDDLE AGES. The ideology of kiddush ha-Shem and devotion to it as crystallized in antiquity continued and strength-

ened in the Middle Ages. Christian persecution and the humiliation meted out to Jews intensified the underlying wish to safeguard individuality, and fortified the ethic of kiddush ha-Shem in the struggle to preserve their national identity and freedom to profess their faith. For Jews living in the lands of their enemies kiddush ha-Shem became the only convincing way of asserting when faced with Christian missionary coercion that if they were not to be permitted to live openly as Jews they chose not to live at all. Surrounded by feudal warriors and the feudal mode of fighting, torn from their country and appearing as aliens everywhere, for Jews *suicide as kiddush ha-Shem was in many cases the only way in which they could exemplify and give expression to human courage. When confronted by brute force, Jews tried to defend themselves wherever and however they could; however, since they often failed, as was inevitable in the case of a small minority, readiness to die was the only way of maintaining a lofty exemplar for Jewish existence. Where Christian knights ruled through their warrior techniques and conformed to their specific knightly scale of values, Jews, influenced involuntarily by this spirit, could hold their own – both in point of physical survival and more importantly from the spiritual and psychological aspect – only through ultimate readiness to face the supreme sacrifice. In the 11t century the conception of holy war became predominant in Western Christian thought. Popular religious feeling in the West became more fanatical and was often connected with social unrest. Even before the beginning of the *crusades, cases of suicide to avoid forced conversion to Christianity are recorded. The suicide of Jews in the tenth century in southern Italy for the sake of their faith is described by contemporaries as “pure total burnt offering” (olah temimah). In the spring of 1096 many of the participants in the First Crusade conceived that their armed pilgrimage to free the sepulcher of Jesus logically demanded either the extinction of the Jewish religion in Christian countries or the annihilation of those Jews who would not accept Christianity. In the atmosphere of holy war many Jews believed that the glory of the Lord and the honor of their Law would be debased if they did not bear witness for them by open and public proclamation of their abiding truth in a chivalrous manner. Thus, through the curious workings of historic irony the Christian crusading venture and Jewish martyrdom by kiddush ha-Shem each became in its own particular way expressions of a holy war waged for the glory of God. During the crusading onslaught on them in 1096 the communities of the Rhine district sacrificed themselves for their faith in this spirit. Those who remained alive related the sacrifices of the martyrs in the same spirit. Thousands of Jews lost their lives in the course of those terrible months; a few of the victims fell in direct battle, and the majority perished through suicides of whole families. In the chronicles of the massacres of the First Crusade and the threnodies composed on the martyrs the ideology of kiddush ha-Shem is reformulated. A mother in Mainz is related as having said that she

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

143

cal refusal to employ any form of dissimulation or live an undercover existence, and readiness to undergo bodily and spiritual torture in the full knowledge that this behavior may appear sheer madness to those who inflict it. Hannah, “the mother of the Maccabees” according to Christian tradition, exhorts her seven sons in a similar way not to be afraid of either hangmen or death. These figures became the prototypes for and symbols of martyrdom and martyrs in both Judaism and Christianity. The Fourth Book of Maccabees is almost entirely a philosophical sermon on the meaning and glory of kiddush ha-Shem in Hellenistic times. Whereas in the Christian and Muslim interpretation the Jewish kiddush ha-Shem became an act of mainly individual martyrdom, the lot of saints chosen by God for their individual path of suffering – and (in Christianity) their participation in the mystery of Crucifixion, the martyred saints following Christ on the cross – in Judaism kiddush ha-Shem remained a task set for each and every Jew to fulfill if the appropriate moment came. It found logical expression in the readiness to die as a son of the Chosen People. In the war against Rome of 66–70/73, whole communities committed suicide as a culmination of their fight against alien power. Thus, in the many trials of revolt and war in which Jews were tested, from the wars of liberation of the Maccabees up to the failure of the revolts against the Romans both in Ereẓ Israel and the Diaspora, kiddush ha-Shem acted as a motivating force giving meaning to the struggle of the Jewish warriors, strength of endurance under cruel torture by victors, and offering suicide as a way out of submission and slavery. The famous mass suicide at *Masada was inspired more by the conception of kiddush haShem as a commandment, and a proud refusal to submit to the Roman enemy, than by the philosophical argumentations that Josephus, an arch enemy of the self-sacrificing *Zealots, put in the mouths of the defenders of Masada. As if referring to an everyday, ordinary incident, one of the tannaim describes “those who dwell in the land of Israel and risk their lives for the sake of the commandments: ‘Why are you being led out to be decapitated?’ ‘Because I circumcised my son to be an Israelite.’ ‘Why are you being led out to be burned?’ ‘Because I read the Torah.’ ‘Why are you being led out to be crucified?’ ‘Because I ate the unleavened bread.’ ‘Why are you getting a hundred lashes?’ ‘Because I performed the ceremony of the lulav.’ These wounds caused me to be beloved of my Father in heaven” (Mekh. Ba-Ḥ odesh, 6). They were conscious that this behavior appeared strange to the gentiles who asked the Jews: What is the nature of your God that “you are so ready to die for Him, and so ready to let yourselves be killed for Him … you are handsome, you are mighty, come and intermingle with us” (Mekh. Shirata, 3). *Samaritans also chose the Jewish path of kiddush ha-Shem in the course of their revolts and sufferings for the Torah and its truth as they conceived it.

kiddush ha-shem and Ḥ illul ha-shem

killed her children as sacrifices to God to fulfill His commandment to be “whole with him” (liheyot temimim immo) (A.M. Habermann (ed.), Sefer Gezerot Ashkenaz ve-Ẓ arefat (1945), 34), thus tacitly framing a condemnation of forced converts leading a halfhearted underground existence as *anusim. The writings about these acts employ the ancient symbols of aggadic literature – *Akedah, *Abraham’s bosom, and the divine light which will be vouchsafed to the martyrs, and stress the open challenge offered to the crusaders by the Jews who proclaimed the superiority of their faith over Christianity. The silence of the sources sometimes bears eloquent testimony to the conception of kiddush ha-Shem as the Jewish way of waging the holy war: the pillage and robbery, loss of property and homes that accompanied the attacks are only hinted at, while the motives of the crusaders are formulated in a way that conveys their Christian religious determinants only (see ibid., pp. 24, 26, 27, 72, 93, 94). Wherever possible, in these attacks Jews tried to fight off their assailants at the gates and at the entrances to houses (ibid., pp. 30–31a, 33, 97, 99–100), but when their endeavors at defense failed they killed themselves and took special care to slay their children first to prevent them from being carried off and brought up as Christians. Such sources describe these events for future generations not as acts committed out of desperation but from the feeling that these Jews had chosen to die in this way so that the remnant of the nation should be able to continue its existence with pride. The community of *Xanten is remembered for having added to their last communal benediction after food, just before the mass suicide, the following prayer: “The merciful One will avenge in the days of those who will remain after us, before their eyes the blood shed by your servants and the blood that is to be shed” (ibid., p. 49). After the wholesale burning of Jews at the stake in *Blois in 1171 a Jewish sage signing his name “Ovadiah” summed up something like a set of rules for Jewish behavior under enemy sovereignty, speaking as if from the mouths of the martyred: “For the saints have proclaimed … if the rulers decree … as to taxation … it is permissible … to plead to ease the burden … but … when they take it into their evil hearts … to blandish, to terrorize, to make them impure [through apostasy] … the chosen ones shall answer … we shall pay no heed to your lies … we shall remain true” [to the Jewish faith] (see S. Spiegel, in: Sefer ha-Yovel… Mordekhai Menaḥ em Kaplan (1953), 286). This steadfastness continued to fortify Jews throughout the tribulations, libels, and massacres to which they were subjected in these centuries. When the Nordhausen community was led to be burned on the pyre during the *Black Death massacres in 1349 they obtained permission to hire musicians, and went singing and dancing to their deaths. Medieval Jewish prayer books include, in addition to the benedictions for bread and drink, a benediction to be recited by a Jew before killing himself and his children. Special memorial lists were compiled to preserve the memory of those who had sacrificed themselves for kiddush ha-Shem (see *Memorbuch). As the victims of the blood *libel, Host *desecration libel, and other

calumnies were subjected to continuous torture intended to extort “confessions,” endurance under excruciating pain or suicide to avoid making a false confession came to be considered a true manifestation of kiddush ha-Shem. Among the Jews of Christian Spain kiddush ha-Shem was recognized both as a phenomenon distinguishing Ashkenazi Jewry and a problem to be reckoned with in their own existence, as the writings of Judah Halevi and Naḥ manides show for the 12t and 13t centuries. From the end of the 14t century kiddush ha-Shem became part of the fate and sufferings of Spanish Jewry, whether upheld through massacres, persecutions, or libels as Jews openly professing their faith, or under the fire and torture of the *Inquisition chambers and tribunals as anusim. *Abraham b. Eliezer ha-Levi applied the ancient Maccabean tradition and theory of kiddush ha-Shem to the victim of the torture chambers and at the auto-da-fé:

144

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Whoever firmly resolves to devote himself to the honor of His name … such a man, being exposed to cruel tortures and sorely tormented, as was the case with the holy martyrs in the Land, those marvelous young men, the sons of saintly Hannah, in the days when the priests could come near the Presence of God; they were the heroes who fought God’s battles – if such a man will but concentrate and put between his eyes the “aweinspiring and great Name,” resolve to undergo martyrdom, and his eyes will incline towards the Holy One of Israel … then he may be sure that he will withstand the test … nor feel any pain, blows or torments … And these things are worthy to be made known to His people Israel for the generation is one of religious persecution, and no Israelite should go in ignorance of this principle … And it may well be that it was to such a saintly person, who, albeit his soul is given over completely to God and rejoices in His love, is yet buried together with the wicked and consumed by fire, the wise Solomon alluded when he said (Song 8:5), “Who is that coming up from the wilderness, Leaning upon her beloved?” For the promise of the Lord proves true: she [the soul] leans and falls, limb by limb and piece by piece; but of such a saintly soul the righteous who dwell in the innermost mansion of the King, where joy resides, expound: Who is that coming up from the terrestrial world, which is like unto a wilderness?… Out of love for her beloved her body falls part by part; because of the trials she undergoes, her flesh pierced by tongs or cut to pieces by the sword; and the King, to Whom all peace belongs, for Whose love she suffers so, looks down from His abode and proclaims as she ascends to Him: “Behold thou are upright and pure, today have I begotten thee” (Ps. 2:7), and “under the apple tree I awakened thee” (Song. 8:5) (as quoted in Baer, Spain, 2 (1966), 430–1).

In this early 16t-century summation the wheel has turned full circle: the motives which inspired individuals to choose the path of kiddush ha-Shem at the time of the clash with Hellenism merge with the sufferings of the tortured body of the individual Jew in his pain and fire-wracked isolation looking from his physical breakdown to his meeting with the loving God in heaven. MODERN TIMES. In early modern times the general trends of enlightenment and abatement of medieval religious pressures were accompanied by growing secularization in

kiddushin

Bibliography: H.G. Friedman, in: HUCA (1904), 193–214; I. Gruenwald, in: Molad, 1 (1967/68), 476–84; A. Holz, in: Judaism, 10 (1961), 360–7; J. Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (1961), ch. 7 and passim. HISTORICAL ASPECTS: Roth, Marranos; Baer, Spain; idem, in: Sefer Assaf (1953), 126–40; Baron, Social2, index, S.V. Martyrs; S. Spiegel, in: Sefer ha-Yovel… Mordekhai Menaḥ em Kaplan (1953), 267–87; Ha-Ḥ evrah ha-Historit ha-Yisre’elit, Milḥ emet Kodesh uMartirologyah (1968); H.H. Ben-Sasson, in: idem, Historiyyonim veAskolot Historiyyot (1962), 29–40; idem (ed.), Toledot Am Yisrael, 3 vols. (1969).

KIDDUSHIN (Heb. ‫ּשין‬ ִ ׁ ‫) ִקדּ ו‬, the last tractate in the order Nashim in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and both Talmuds. It deals with matrimonial matters. Its position at the end of the order is due to the fact that the order of the tractates is determined by their size and Kiddushin has only four chapters, less than all other tractates of Nashim. There is no corresponding word for kiddushin in English. It is more than an “engagement” in the current sense, as it can be dissolved only by divorce, and moreover the law of adultery, carrying the biblical death penalty, applies from the moment of kiddushin. On the other hand kiddushin is like “betrothal” in the sense that it represents a formal stage preliminary to marriage proper (nissu’in), the latter term referring to the induction of the wife into the husband’s house, symbolized by the ḥ uppah. Chapter 1, applying to kiddushin the term acquisition (kinyan), opens with the modes of kiddushin: by money, by writ, and by intercourse. The rest of the chapter deals with the acquisition of slaves and animals, of land and chattels, and with other extraneous matters. The chapter concludes with aggadic sayings. Chapter 2 deals mainly with kiddushin by proxy. Chapter 3 examines “kiddushin on condition” and “doubtful kiddushin,” leading up to the problem of blemished descent. Chapter 4 deals mainly with questions of genealogy and bastardy. As usual, the tractate ends with homiletic material, on education, and after deliberating at length which craft to teach one’s sons, reaches the conclusion that Torah study is the best vocation. In the Tosefta, this tractate is divided into five chapters. Important masoretic observations are made in the Babylonian Talmud. It states that the scribes were called soferim because they counted (safar) the letters of the Torah; exact indications are then given as to the number of letters, words, and verses in the Pentateuch and in other parts of the Bible, and as to which letter, word, or verse mark the middle of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, or the Chronicles respectively (30a). Interesting is the characterization of various nations: Rome is credited with welfare, Persia with courage, Babylon is said to be poor and ignorant, and Arabia immoral. Elam is characterized by hypocrisy and arrogance (49b). Historically important is the account of the struggle between the Pharisees and John Hyrcanus (66a). According to the letter of R. Sherira Gaon, a considerable section of the beginning of the Gemara text (up to “Ve-ein davar aḥ er kortah”; 3b) is of savoraic origin. The first chapter of tractate Kiddushin belongs to an ancient collection of mishnayot. The manner in which the halakhic material is arranged in this chapter suggests that it might originally have been a separate tractate, on kinyanim, later perhaps prefixed to the tractate Kiddushin because it happened to start with the “acquisition” of the wife. In fact, in the Babylonian Talmud this chapter comprises half of the tractate. Its language is slightly archaic, and the conclusion of the first chapter: “whoever performs a single precept is well rewarded, his days are prolonged, and he inherits the land” similarly testifies to an early date. To the same category belong also the end of the third and the fourth chapter of the tractate, which contain early halakhot on forbidden marriages (cf. the end of ch.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

145

Jewish life and thought, leanings toward assimilation, and striving for emancipation, all factors which both separately and in combination conduced to disintegration in Jewish society and abandonment of specifically Jewish values. Thus, while the necessity to uphold kiddush ha-Shem diminished in fact, the concept also lost actuality and significance. With the awakening of Jewish national feeling in later modern times, as expressed by the formation of political parties like the *Bund, the organization of *self-defense against pogroms, and Zionism, the principle of kiddush ha-Shem reasserted its influence, consciously or subconsciously, manifested in new ideological frames for the defense of Jewish dignity and in modes of response by Jews to social and spiritual challenge. Jewish revolutionary attitudes bear its imprint in the courage and readiness to struggle and self-sacrifice for the sake of humanity even when there is no immediate prospect of victory on the horizon. In the same way, the fight and death of the rebels in the Nazi ghettos was ultimately inspired by this ancient Jewish tradition. Kiddush ha-Shem is an original contribution by the Jewish faith and culture to the whole monotheistic world. Through it was expressed for the first time in human history the readiness of simple people to die for their faith and opinions. It is an ultimate prop of individual expression when all other physical supports have been withdrawn. Kiddush ha-Shem has played a central and formative role in Jewish history, both through the reality of the sacrifices made to uphold it as well as through the spiritual images and attitudes by which it has been activated. It is a powerful and valid expression of human courage and readiness for supreme sacrifice. In a large measure due to the principle of kiddush ha-Shem Jews have escaped spiritual degradation throughout the long *galut (“Diaspora”), thus failing to justify the hopes and views of their enemies and detractors. Through it courage and the spirit to resist have been continuously kept alive in Jewish hearts and transmitted to posterity from the days of Daniel to the present. Individual exemplary behavior and collective enthusiasm have sustained it in changing situations and forms. The valor and heroism shown in defense of the State of Israel in the 20t century can be seen as the direct inheritance of chivalrous courage which Jews from generation to generation have transmitted in upholding the principle of kiddush ha-Shem. [Haim Hillel Ben-Sasson]

kidron

1 of Mishnah Ḥ agigah). The influence of Pumbedita is clearly perceptible in the editing of the Talmud of Kiddushin, even though it is possible to discern the large share of Ravina and R. Ashi in its final editing. In the Soncino Talmud, Kiddushin was translated into English by H. Freedman (1936). Bibliography: Epstein, Tanna’im, 52–54, 414–6; idem, Amora’im, 95–102; Ḥ . Albeck, Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, 3 (1954), 307ff. [Arnost Zvi Ehrman]

KIDRON (Heb. ‫) ִק ְדרוֹ ן‬, valley to the N. and E. of Jerusalem, separating the city from the Mount of Olives. The name derived from the root kdr (“dark,” “shady”), refers to its depth. The valley begins near the Sanhedria saddle, northwest of Jerusalem, at a height of 2,585 ft. (788 m.), close to the watershed. It continues eastward for about 1½ mi. (2½ km.) as Naḥ al Egozim (Wadi Jauz). At a height of 2,346 ft. (715 m.) the valley turns south. Several valleys converge with the Kidron as it runs southward: the Bethzeita Valley, which traverses the northeast corner of the Old City, at 2,260 ft. (686 m.) from the west; the Tyropoeon Valley, which bisects the Old City, at 2,035 ft. (617 m.); the Ben-Hinnom Valley, which passes the Old City on the west, at 2,000 ft. (606 m.). The Kidron then continues in a southeasterly direction, the banks becoming steeper and more craggy. It passes the monastery of Mar Saba and issues into the Dead Sea 2 mi. (c. 3 km.) south of Ra’s al-Fashkha. The great importance of the Kidron for Jerusalem lies in the fact that it and its confluents determined the orographical shape of the area on which the city was built. The valley protected the City of David and its northern continuation, the Temple Mount, on the east. The Gihon, Jerusalem’s only spring, issued from its west slope. Only toward the end of the Second Temple period, when Agrippa I built the Third Wall there, was the westward bend of the Kidron utilized for protection of the city. Situated on the leeward side of the city and presenting rock surfaces suitable for the cutting of tomb caves, the valley served from early times as a necropolis of Jerusalem, the early tombs culminating in the magnificent rock-cut monuments along the eastern slope. The first biblical reference to the “brook” Kidron occurs in connection with David’s flight before Absalom (II Sam. 15:23). In the time of the divided monarchy, the reforming kings of Judah, Asa, Hezekiah, and Josiah, cast away and burnt the various idols which defiled Jerusalem there (I Kings 15:13; II Kings 23:4, 6, 12; II Chron. 15:16; 29:16). Jeremiah included the Kidron within the area holy to the Lord (31:39–40). In later times the central part of the valley was called the Valley of Jehoshaphat and was assumed to be the place where the dead were resurrected. In this legend, as adapted by the Muslims, all men had to cross the valley on a sword suspended over it.

KIEL, city in *Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. In the 17t century, Jews went to Kiel for the annual fair (Kieler Umschlag). Permission to settle in the city was given in 1690 to the Sephardi Court Jew Jacob Musaphia, followed in 1728 by Samson Lewin, another Court Jew. Together they laid the foundations for the small Jewish community. In 1766 Kiel had six Jewish families engaged in small businesses and moneylending. Although Schleswig-Holstein was annexed by Denmark in 1733, the legal status of the Jews in the duchy was not ameliorated. The community had a prayer hall and buried their dead at Rendsburg. In 1803 Jewish students were admitted to the University of Kiel. There were then 29 Jews in the city; the numbers grew to 75 in 1845 and 156 in 1855. A cemetery was consecrated in 1852; the community was officially organized in 1867 and two years later a synagogue was erected, to be replaced by a new one in 1910. In 1900 the community numbered 338 persons, 526 in 1910, 600 in 1925, and 522 in 1933. Kiel rabbis included Emil *Cohn (1907–12) and A. Posner (1912–33). On the Nazi rise to power, the community was exposed to severe repression and persecution: Jewish professors were dismissed from the university and the works of 28 Jewish authors – mainly lecturers in Kiel University – were removed from the library of the university. Anti-Jewish boycott meetings were held all over the city. As all Jewish children were removed from the city’s public school system, the community opened its own grade school. A total of 586 Jews left the city during the Nazi era. Of those who remained 85 were deportees and 12 committed suicide. On Nov. 10, 1938, the synagogue was burned down and Jewish homes and stores were looted. After the war 11 Jews returned to Kiel; the bombed Jewish cemetery was later restored. Bibliography: M. Stern, Die israelitische Bevoelkerung der deutschen Staedte, 2 (1892); W. Victor, Die Emanzipation der Juden in Schleswig-Holstein (1913); A. Posner, in: MGWJ, 72 (1928), 287–91; 76 (1932), 229–39; Fuehrer durch die juedische Gemeindeverwaltung (1932–33), 122; H. Kellenbenz, Sephardim an der unteren Elbe (1958), index; EJ, 9. S.V. [Chasia Turtel]

KIEL, YEHUDA (1917– ), Israel educationist. Born in Petrograd, as a child he lived in Lithuania and Latvia. Arriving in Palestine in 1935, he helped develop the state religious education system and was its national supervisor of elementary and secondary education. In 1992 he was awarded the Israel Prize for Jewish studies in recognition of his commentary on books of the Bible, particularly his wide-ranging ones on First and Second Chronicles.

Bibliography: Abel, Geog, 1 (1933), 400–1; N. Avigad, Maẓ ẓ evot Kedumot be-Naḥ al Kidron (1954); M. Avi-Yonah (ed.), Sefer Yerushalayim (1956), passim. Add. Bibliography: Y. Tsafrir, L. Di Segni, and J. Green, Tabula Imperii Romani. Iudaea – Palaestina. Maps and Gazetteer. (1994), 102, S.V. Cedron Torrens. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KIELCE, capital of Kielce province, S.E. Poland. Jews were excluded from Kielce by a royal “privilege” granted to the city in 1535. Kielce belonged to the estates of the bishops of Cracow until 1818, and thus the prohibition on Jewish settlement remained in force. In 1833 a small number of Jews settled in Kielce. They were expelled in 1847 but returned shortly afterward. In 1852 there were 101 Jews in Kielce and the congregation was affiliated to the neighboring community at Checiny.

146

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kiera

It became a separate community in 1868, and a cemetery was established. The Jewish population increased from 974 in 1873 to 2,659 in 1882, 6,399 in 1897, and 11,206 in 1909, mainly by immigration from the adjacent small towns. A pogrom in 1918 did not prevent the growth of the community, which by 1921 numbered 15,530 (37.6 of the total population), and by 1931, 18,083. Jews pioneered in exploiting the natural resources of the region and developed industries, commerce, and crafts; among enterprises established by Jews were several banks. Jewish organizations included associations of Jewish merchants and artisans, an old-age home, and an orphanage, as well as a library, a high school, and a number of religious and secular Jewish schools. A Yiddish weekly was published jointly for the Kielce and *Radom communities. [William Glicksman]

Holocaust Period In 1939 about 25,000 Jews lived in Kielce. The German army entered the city on Sept. 4, 1939, and the Jews became the subject of terror and persecution. During the first months of 1940 about 3,000 Jews from Cracow as well as Jews from Lodz and Lalisz and its vicinity were deported to Kielce, whose Jewish population swelled to about 28,000. On March 31, 1941, after 7,500 Jews arrived from Vienna, a decree was issued to establish a ghetto. On the eve of Passover the ghetto was sealed off from the outside world. A *Judenrat was appointed, chaired by Moshe Pelc, who was eventually arrested and deported to *Auschwitz for resisting German orders. His place was filled by Herman Levi, who tended toward collaboration with the Germans. The situation of the population in the ghetto rapidly deteriorated. About 4,000 people died during a typhus epidemic in 1941. In the course of three days (Aug. 20–24, 1942), about 21,000 Jews were deported to *Treblinka and exterminated. The ghetto was virtually liquidated. The remaining 2,000 Jews were concentrated in a newly established slave labor camp. Preparations in the camp for an armed rising, conducted by an underground organization headed by David Barwiner and Gershon Levkowicz, did not succeed. In 1943 a number of deportations from the labor camp took place of about 1,000 people for slave labor camps in *Skarzysko-Kamienna, Blizyna, and Pionki, where only a handful survived. The last deportation took place in August 1944, when all the remaining Jewish prisoners were sent to Auschwitz and Buchenwald. Kielce became officially judenrein. Leon Rodal of Kielce was one of the commanders of the *Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

adequate means for self-defense since the police had confiscated the few pistols among them just one day previously. In this pogrom, the largest attack on Jews following the Nazi era, 60–70 Jews were murdered, including children and pregnant women, and around 100 were injured. The pogrom gave impetus to the Jews in Kielce and to the other Jewish survivors of the *Holocaust in Poland, including those who had returned from the Soviet Union, to leave Poland en masse for the West. They reached the *displaced persons camps and joined the massive *Beriḥ ah movement to Ereẓ Israel. A monument was erected in the Kielce Jewish cemetery to perpetuate the memory of the victims of the Kielce pogrom. Organizations of former Kielce residents exist in Israel, the U.S., Canada, Argentina, and France. [Stefan Krakowski]

Bibliography: J. Lestschinsky, Dos Yidishe Folk in Tsifern (1922), 77–78; Concise Statistical Yearbook of Poland, 13 (1963), Eisenbach, in: Bleter far Geshikhte, 3:2–3 (1950), 3–62, and index; Rutkowski, in: BZIH, 15–16 (1955), 75–182; 17–18 (1956), 108–28; P. Meyer et al., Jews in the Soviet Satellites (1953), index; S. Mikołajczyk, The Rape of Poland (1948); A memorial book, Sefer Kielts, was published in 1957 (Heb., partly Yid.). Add. Bibliography: B. Szaynok, Pogrom Zydow w Kielcach, 4 lipca 1946 (1992); D. Engel, Bein Shiḥ rur le-Beriḥ ah (1996). Index; PK.

Postwar Period After the war about 200 Jews went to Kielce; some were survivors of Nazi camps, or had hidden in the district, and others had come back from the interior of the U.S.S.R. Their reconstruction of the former organized Jewish community aroused anger among Polish antisemites, who opened a vituperous campaign against the existence of a renewed Jewish community in Kielce. The campaign culminated in an armed pogrom against the Jews – mostly by Polish nationalists and including a few Communists (July 4, 1946). The Jews had no

KIERA (also Kyra, Kira, Chiera), a Greek title meaning “lady,” given to women who handled the relations of the wives in the Ottoman sultan’s royal harem in various external matters. In general these women were Jewish. They acted as commercial intermediaries between the women in the harem and the world beyond it and thereby gained the former’s trust. It appears that there were at least two women with the name of Esther who held this position. One was mentioned during the first half of the 16t century, as confidant of the mother of Selim II. Information is available on the activities of three kieras, and probably there are other Jewish women who filled the same position, but did not receive the title. The first known kiera was Strongilah (after her conversion her name was changed to Fatma (Fatima)) Kadin, who was apparently a Karaite from the Crimea. She was a daughter of Eliyah Gibor. She rendered various services to the ladies of the harem and became very close to Hafsa Sultan, the mother of *Suleiman the Magnificent, and died in 1548 after adopting Islam. When Suleiman ascended to the throne his mother managed to obtain for Strongilah and her descendants an exemption from taxes and permission to own non-Muslim slaves, The exemption, originally given in 1520/21, was reconfirmed in 1612, 1624/25, 1691/92, 1791/92, 1839/40 and 1867/68. Some of her children remained Jewish and appeared as a separate group in the poll tax registers with the designation “sons of Kurd” (one of her grandchildren). The second kiera was Esther, the wife of the Jewish merchant Elijah *Handali, probably a Sephardi; she supplied jewelry to the women of the harem and rapidly became the confidant of Nur Banu, the favorite concubine of *Selim II and the mother of Murad III (1574–95), and died in about 1590.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

147

kiesler, frederick john

She was certainly active before 1566. She exerted a decisive influence in court and state affairs during the second half of the 16t century. She attained powerful influence and special status. Her activity reached its climax with the settlement of a diplomatic conflict between the Ottomans and the Venetians during the 1580s and in the arrangement which granted several commercial privileges to the Venetians. In appreciation of this the Venetian government authorized her to organize a lottery in the city. In internal affairs of state, Esther assisted several individuals in purchasing honorific titles and positions – a trend which began to develop toward the close of the 16t century. She thus gained many friends for herself in the upper Ottoman circles, but also some enemies. In the Jewish community she was renowned for her generosity and extensive support of scholars and authors (e.g., the physician Samuel Sullam and R. Isaac *Akrish); she assisted Jewish merchants when the government sought to conspire against them; she even intervened in order to prevent the enforcement of Sultan Murad III’s decree to destroy the Jewish community throughout the empire. After the great fire of 1569, she gave shelter and aid for a long period to many of the survivors. Samuel Sullam, who published a book she sponsored, wrote in the introduction that she had spent her entire fortune on charity. Through their mother her sons also amassed great wealth and obtained special privileges, mainly in the form of exemptions from taxes. The eldest leased the customs duties of the capital, *Istanbul, and enjoyed a special status among both the Jewish and foreign merchants. The third kiera was Esperanza *Malchi (or Malkhi), who served as agent for Safiye, the consort of Murad III and the mother of Mehmed III (1595–1603). She played some part in a correspondence between Safiye and Queen Elizabeth I of England. She addressed at least one letter, in Italian, to Elizabeth in 1599, in which she identified herself as a Jewess. In this letter she dealt with the exchange of gifts between the two queens and suggested that in the future Elizabeth should not send jewels but rather cosmetics and fine cloths of silk and wool and advised Elizabeth to deliver these items for the Queen Mother only by her own hand. It is difficult to distinguish Handali from Malki except in a few documents in which their full names appear. It seems that the kiera was murdered on April 1, 1600, at the hands of rebellious, sword-wielding soldiers on the staircase of the house of Halil Pasha, the kaimakam of Istanbul. Enormous wealth was confiscated from Malki’s estate after her death. Her fall occurred suddenly in 1600, and according to various testimonies it made a depressing impact on the Jewish community of Istanbul. It was due to several simultaneous factors: the rapid devaluation of the Ottoman currency which, among other things, was the cause of great discontent within the army; the extensive wealth of the family which attracted the attention of Sultan Mehmet III, who was in need of money; and the desire in various army and government circles to undermine the influence of the sultan’s mother. The immediate cause of Malki’s downfall was her intervention in a military appointment – she proposed a candidate of her

148

own for a position which had been promised to someone else. The sipahis (cavalry) of the sultan, who sought to undermine the influence of the sultan’s mother, rebelled on this occasion and demanded that Malki be handed over to them. The sultan gave his consent. The sipahis subsequently seized Esther and her eldest son and executed them. The second son disappeared and the third converted to Islam. All of the family’s property was confiscated by the sultan’s treasury. Jewish kieras must have continued to serve the ladies of the imperial harem in the 17t century. In 1622, an unnamed Jewish woman with connections to the sister of Sultan Osman II (1618–22) was mentioned as having been involved in promoting the candidacy of Locadello to the office of governor of Moldavia. In 1709, another unnamed woman was believed to have helped the Jewish physician Daniel de *Fonseca pass on information to the mother of Sultan Ahmed III (1703–30) in order to bring about an Ottoman-Swedish alliance against Russia. Bibliography: Rosanes, Togarmah, 3 (1938), 65–66, 280–4; 4 (1934), 188–89; A. Galanté, Esther Kyra d’après des nouveaux documents (1926); J.H. Mordtmann, in: Mitteilungen des Seminars fuer Orientalische Sprachen, 32:2 (1929), 1–38; W. Foster (ed.), Travels of John Sanderson in the Levant 1584–1602 (1931), 85–86, 185, 188, 201–4; C. Roth, House of Nasi, Doña Gracia (1947), 105–6, 202; idem, Duke of Naxos (1948), 200–2, 347; Add Bibliography: S.A. Skilliter, in: S.M. Stern (ed), Oriental Studies, 3. Documents from Islamic Chanceries, First Series (1965), 119–157; S.W. Baron, Social and Religious History, 18:145–146; A. Levy, in: A. Levy (ed), The Jews of the Ottoman Empire (1994), 29–30; L. Bornstein, Ha-Hanhaga shel ha-Kehillah ha-Yehudit ba-Mizrah ha-Karov (1978), 29, 391–92.; M.A. Epstein, The Ottoman Jewish Communities and their Role in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (1980), 185; M. Rozen, in: Michael, 7 (1982), 195; idem, A History of the Jewish Community in Istanbul, The Formative Years, 1453–1566 (2002). 204–205, 207, 262, 280; L.P. Pierce, The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire (1993), 18, 40, 59–63, 78–79, 121, 126, 223, 225–226, 230, 277. [Cecil Roth and Aryeh Shmuelevitz / Leah Bornstein-Makovetsky (2nd ed.)]

KIESLER, FREDERICK JOHN (1896–1965), U.S. architect and scenic designer. Born in Vienna, Kiesler worked first as an architect, but by the mid-1920s had gained a European reputation as an avant-garde stage designer, promoting such innovations as theater in the round. He settled in New York in 1926 and from 1933 to 1957 was scenic director for the Juilliard School of Music. His revolutionary method of hanging pictures in the Museum of Modern Art (1942) gave rise to the term “environmental sculpture.” Kiesler was joint designer of the “Shrine of the Book” at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem, to house the Dead Sea Scrolls. KIEV (Kiov), capital of Ukraine. The Jewish Community before 1667 Kiev’s central position on the River Dnieper at the commercial crossroads of Western Europe and the Orient attracted Jewish settlers (*Rabbanites and *Karaites) from the foundation ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kiev

of the town in the eighth century C.E. At first most of them were transient merchants from both east and west. According to letters dated 930 from the Cairo *Genizah there were Jews in Kiev at this time. Ancient Russian chronicles relate that some Jews from *Khazaria visited Vladimir, the prince of Kiev, to try to convert him to Judaism (986). About that time a Jewish community already existed in the city. Jewish merchants from the West (Radanites) took part in the trade of the city, and were called in Hebrew sources “goers to Russia.” The abbot of Kiev, Theodosius the Blessed (11t century), is said to have visited Jewish homes at night and to have held disputations with the householders. There were two Jewish suburbs of Kiev, Kozary and Zhidove. A “Gate of the Jews” is mentioned at the time of the riots which broke out on the death of Prince Svyatopolk (1113), when the populace also attacked Jewish houses and burned them. *Benjamin of Tudela mentions “Kiov, the great city,” and *Pethahiah of Regensburg visited the town on his way to the Orient (12t century). At the end of the 12t century two Jews, Ephraim son of Moses and Anabel Jasin, served in the court of the prince Andrey Bogoliubski. During the same century *Moses of Kiev lived in the town. He corresponded with Jacob b. Meir *Tam in the west and the gaon *Samuel b. Ali in Baghdad. Under Tatar rule (1240–1320) the Jews had been protected, earning them the hatred of the Christian population. With the annexation of Kiev to the principality of Lithuania (1320), the Jews were granted certain rights ensuring the safety of their lives and property. Several of them (such as Simkha, Riabichka, Danilovich, and Shan in 1488) leased the collection of taxes and amassed fortunes. As the Jewish community increased in numbers so did the number of scholars, although the statement found in several sources, “from Kiev emanate Torah and light,” is an exaggeration. During the 15t century *Moses (b. Jacob Ashkenazi the Exile) of Kiev II wrote commentaries on the Sefer Yeẓ irah, on the Pentateuch commentaries of Abraham *Ibn Ezra and others, and held disputations with the Karaites. In the Tatar raid on Kiev (1482) many Jews were taken captive. In 1470 Zekharia, whom Russian sources link to the beginning of the Zhidovstvuyushchiye movement (Jewish heresy), left Kiev for Novgorod. Like the rest of the Jews in the principality of Lithuania, the Kiev community was expelled in 1495. When the decree was revoked (1503), the community was reestablished. However, in 1619 the Christian merchants obtained from King Sigismund III a prohibition on permanent settlement of Jews or their acquisition of real estate in the town. They were allowed to come into Kiev for trading purposes alone and might remain one day only in an inn assigned to them. In spite of this, many Jews continued to live in the town under the protection of the Vojevoda (district governor) and noblemen in their properties in town (who saw them as a source of income). Russian sources relate that Jews were killed in Kiev during the *Chmielnicki massacres (1648). On the demand of the citizens, John II Casimir of Poland and Czar Alexis renewed the prohibition on Jewish settlement (1654). This became final with the

annexation of Kiev to Russia (1667). The Russian Orthodox academy there fomented hatred of the Jews and its students attacked any Jew they found trading in the town.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

149

From 1793 After a break of about 150 years the community of Kiev was reestablished in 1793, after the second partition of Poland. In 1798 the community acquired land for a cemetery. The earlier conflict between the Christian citizens and the Jews began once more. While the Jews struggled for settlement in Kiev, the economic and commercial center of the southwestern region of Russia, the citizens persistently endeavored to expel them, basing their claim on the status quo since Sigismund III and adding that “holy” Kiev was “profaned” by the presence of the Jews. In spite of this in 1809 there were 452 Jews in Kiev (of about 20,000 total population), and their numbers rose by 1815 to about 1,500 (not including transients), with two synagogues and other communal institutions. The citizens proceeded with the demand to expel the Jews but owing to the negative stand of the governor, Czar Alexander I ordered them to leave the city. Eventually Cẓ ar *Nicholas I acceded to the demands of the citizens and at the end of 1827 residence in Kiev was forbidden to Jews. In part due to representations by state officials, who pointed out that the expulsion would worsen economic conditions in the town, the execution of the decree was twice deferred. In 1835, however, on the expiry of the last postponement, the Jews left the town, and the Jewish community facilities ceased to function. Despite this, they still played an important part in its economic life, for Jewish merchants came in their hundreds to the large annual fairs held from 1797 in Kiev in January. With their assistants and servants, they made up 50–60 of the fairs’ participants. In 1843 Jewish temporary visitors were officially permitted, provided that they resided and bought food in two specially appointed inns. These were leased by the municipality to Christian agents, who were empowered to deliver to the police any Jew who did not stay in them. At the beginning of the reign of Alexander II these inns were abolished (1858), and instead a special payment to the municipality was levied upon the Jews as compensation for the losses caused by the abolishment of the inns. In 1861 two suburbs, Lyebed and Podol, were assigned to those Jews entitled to reside in Kiev (wealthy merchants and industrialists and their employees, members of the free professions, and craftsmen). The number of Jews in Kiev increased to 3,013 (3 of the total population) in 1863 and to 13,803 (11.8) in 1872. In May 1881 a pogrom raged in the streets of the city, supported and encouraged by the governor-general, General Drenteln. Jewish houses and shops were looted, and many people were injured; 762 families were completely ruined. The damage caused was evaluated at 1,750,000 roubles. From that date the authorities began sporadically to investigate the residence rights of the Jews in Kiev. Until 1917 the city became notorious for the police “oblavy” (“hunt attacks”) for Jews without residence rights. For example, expelled in 1883

kiev

were 1,179 persons, in 1884 1,254, in 1885 1,368, and in the first half of 1886 2,076. The night searches and expulsions continued almost until WWI. In 1891 the authorities ordered that a considerable portion of the income of the Jewish community be allotted to the police to cover the cost of their measures to prevent Jews’ entering the town. In spite of all these persecutions, the number of Jews in Kiev continued to increase. From 31,801 (12.8) in 1897, it rose to 50,792 (10.8) in 1910 and 81,256 (13) at the end of 1913. In fact the number of Jews was greater, since a large number evaded the census. Many Jews also lived in the suburbs and townlets around Kiev and only came into the city daily on business. There were some wealthy Jewish families in Kiev, who included many of the magnates of the southwestern Russian sugar industry (the *Brodsky and Zaitsev families). Many Jews were employed in their factories in the town and the vicinity. There was a very active branch of the Society for Enlightenment of Russian Jews, which maintained 21 Jewish schools in the town and the district, as well as a library of 6,500 books. The city also had many Jewish physicians, lawyers, and other members of the liberal professions. Kiev University attracted Jewish youth; in 1886 Jewish students numbered 236 and in 1911, 888 (17 of the total number of students), the largest concentration of Jewish students in a Russian university. In Kiev were born Golda Meir (Mabovich), who became prime minister of Israel, the writer Ilya *Ehrenburg, and some Hebrew writers, notably J. Kaminer, J.L. *Levin (Yehalel), M. Kamionski, I.J. Weissberg, E. *Schulman, and A.A. Friedman. *Shalom Aleichem, who lived in Kiev for some time, described the town in his account of life in Yehupets. According to the 1897 census, 29,937 Jews (out of 31,801) declared Yiddish as their mother language. There were 12,317 who earned incomes, divided into three main groups: artisans (42), merchants (24), and army service (10). The artisans were mainly occupied as follows: the clothing industry (54), metal works (11), woodworking (9), and printing (6). The main occupations of traders were in farm products (34), textiles and clothing (16), and building materials (7). The Jewish merchants constituted 44 of all the merchants in Kiev. In the wake of Jewish revolutionary activity, a large-scale pogrom occurred on Oct. 18, 1905. Neither army nor police controlled the rioters, who ran amok unhindered for three days. Indeed, soldiers protected the hooligans from the Jewish *self-defense organization. The rioters attacked the houses of the wealthy, but their attacks were mainly directed against the poor suburbs. However, the pogrom did not interrupt the development of the community, which became one of the wealthiest in Russia as well as one of the most diversified socially. In 1910 there were 4,896 Jewish merchants in the town, 42 of all the merchants there, but nevertheless 25 of the community had to apply for Passover alms during that same year. The community was officially recognized in 1906 as the “Jewish Representation for Charity Affairs at the Municipal Council.” Its income from the meat tax (see *korobka) and other sources amounted to 300,000 rubles annually. A Jewish

hospital for the poor which served the whole of Ukraine was opened in 1862, followed by a hospital specializing in surgery, a clinic for eye diseases (under the direction of M. *Mandelstamm), and other welfare institutions. In 1898 a magnificent central synagogue was built by means of a donation from L. *Brodsky. From 1906 to 1921 S. *Aronson was rabbi of Kiev; notable as *kazyonny ravvin (“government-appointed rabbi”) were Joshua Zuckerman, the first to be appointed to this office, and S.Z. Luria. Between 1911 and 1913 Kiev was the site of the notorious *Beilis blood libel trial and the town was then racked by the agitation of the members of the *Union of Russian People (“Black Hundreds”). In 1911, after the assassination of prime minister Stolypin by a Jew in Kiev, severe pogroms were on the point of breaking out there, but the authorities decided to restrain the rioters. During World War I, residence restrictions in the town were lifted for Jewish refugees from the battle areas. The years 1917–20 were years of upheaval for the Jews of Kiev. With the February 1917 Revolution, all the residence restrictions were abolished and Jews at once began to stream into the town. In the census at the end of 1917, 87,246 Jews (19 of the total population) were registered. A democratic community was established, led by the Zionist Moses Nahum *Syrkin. Meetings and congresses of Russian and Ukrainian Jews were held in Kiev, the central institutions of Ukrainian Jewry were set up there, and Jewish writers and communal workers of every shade of opinion and party became active in the town. Books and newspapers were published and cultural institutions, led by the Hebrew *Tarbut and the Yiddish Kultur Lige, engaged in a variety of activities. In the spring of 1919, the number of Jews had grown to 114,524 (21). With the first conquest of the town by the Red Army, which lasted from February to August 1919, Kiev became a haven for refugees from the pogroms sweeping the provincial towns of Ukraine. The running of the Jewish community was handed over to the *Yevsektsiya, and the systematic destruction of communal institutions, traditional Jewish culture, and national parties began. With the retreat of the Red Army, an attempt was made to form a Jewish self-defense unit. When *Petlyura’s forces entered the city they arrested the members of the self-defense unit and 36 of them were executed. A month after Kiev was occupied by *Denikin’s “Volunteer Army,” thugs initiated a period of pillage, rape, and murder of the Jews which lasted until the “Volunteers” were driven out by the Red Army (December 1919). The Jews in Kiev suffered heavily during the famine and typhus outbreak of 1920. In the August 1920 census they constituted one third of the town’s population. In 1923 Kiev had 128,041 Jews (32), 140,256 (27.3) in 1926, and in 1939, 224,236 (of a total population of 845,726). In the years 1920–22 the famine and typhus epidemic ravaged Kiev and took a heavy toll on the Jewish population. OZE, the JDC, and other relief organizations from abroad organized food and medical help. The Jews went through a process of proletarianization, engaging in physical labor or crafts; later

150

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kiev

in the second half of the 1920s half of them were government employees. In 1926, 16,690 Jews were members of trade unions (out of 77,257). The number of Jews in heavy industry grew to 4,080 in 1932. In 1931 they constituted 80 of the 3,300 workers of the shoe factory. During the first 20 years of the Soviet regime, Kiev became a major center of the officially fostered Yiddish culture, with a school system catering to many thousands of pupils and students, culminating in institutes of higher education and learning, such as the department for Jewish culture at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (1926) which in 1930 became the “Institute of Proletarian Jewish Culture” under the direction of Joseph Liberberg. This state-sponsored activity attracted even Jewish writers and scholars from the west, such as Meir *Wiener and others. Some valuable research works on Yiddish language and literature were published there. Many Yiddish poets and writers, among them David *Hofstein and Itzik *Feffer, lived and wrote in Kiev. There were also the AllUkrainian Jewish State Theater, a Yiddish children’s theater, Yiddish newspapers, journals, and publishing houses. In the early 1930s Liberberg and some of his associates headed a group of Yiddish intellectuals who went to the newly established Jewish autonomous region in *Birobidzhan to organize Jewish educational and cultural work there in conjunction with the Jewish academic institute in Kiev. Several years later, with the forcible liquidation of all Jewish institutions, including libraries and archives in Kiev, one of the most important centers of Soviet Yiddish culture ceased to exist.

Holocaust Period The fall of the city to the Germans on Sept. 19, 1941 marked the end of Kiev Jewry. A considerable part of the Jews living in Kiev in 1939 were among the 335,000 evacuees; some managed to flee eastward to central Russia, just before the Nazi occupation. Between September 20–24 buildings in the Khreshchatik area where headquarters of German military units were housed blew up, and many German soldiers and officers were killed. Thousands of hostages, among them many Jews, were taken and executed. On September 26 the city commander convened a meeting in which participated Friedrich Jaeckeln, commander of police and SS on the Southern Front; Dr. Otto Rash, head of Einsatzgruppe C; and SS Colonel Paul Blobel, commander of Einsatzkommando 4a. It was decided to annihilate all the Jews of Kiev. Blobel was in charge of the execution, with the help of units of the German Police and Ukrainian Auxiliary Police. On September 28 (Tishri 7) 2,000 notices in German, Ukrainian, and Russian were posted in Kiev, announcing that “All the Zhids (Jews) of Kiev and the suburbs are to appear on Monday, September 29, 1941, at 8:00 A.M. on the corner of Melnikovskaya and Decktiarovska streets [near the cemeteries]. They are to bring their documents, money, other valuables and warm clothes, linen, etc. Any Zhid found disobeying these orders will be shot. Citizens breaking into flats left by the Jews and taking possession of their belongings

will be shot.” (For Jew the derogatory word “zhid” was used and not the usual evrei.) Since the location was near the Petrovski goods railway station, and owing to the rumors about evacuation of the Jews to other towns or camps, nobody suspected what was coming. On the morning of September 29, tens of thousands of Jews concentrated there were led through Melnik Street to the Jewish cemetery in the Babi Yar ravine, stripped naked, and led in groups to the edge of the ravine, where they were machine-gunned, their bodies falling into the ravine. At the end of the day heaps of earth were thrown over the bodies, burying both dead and wounded. According to the official report of the S.S. unit in charge of the mass extermination, 33,771 Jews were murdered in Babi Yar on Sept. 29–30, 1941. A later report said that about 36,000 Jews were killed then. Babi Yar continued to be a mass execution ground throughout the German occupation. On October 1–3 Einsatzkommando 5 murdered in Babi Yar 2,500–3,000 Jews, including 308 mentally ill. All the time Jewish prisoners of war, mostly from Darnitsa camp, were executed. Hiding in the city were many Jews, some in mixed marriages. Many of them were denounced by local Ukrainians, caught, and shot. From spring 1942, Jews who were caught were sent to labor camps in the city, such as that on Kerosinnaya Street (5,000 prisoners of war and 3,000 Jews), Pecherskaya Street, and Institutskaya Street. The number of inmates diminished due to selections, starvation, and daily killings. In May 1942 the Syretsk camp (near Babi Yar) was opened, and in December it housed 2,000 inmates, more than a third of them Jews. The regime was very cruel – prisoners were shot for the smallest infraction or for not being able to work. On August 18, 1943, 100 prisoners from Syretsk were taken to Babi Yar, and soon the group was enlarged to 321 inmates. Their task was to eradicate any sign of the mass graves in the ravine. A bonfire was made from railway ties, and excavators opened the graves. The prisoners, whose legs were in chains, took the bodies, searched them for valuables and gold teeth and fillings, and threw them into the bonfire; any bones remaining were ground, and the ashes spread around and leveled. A garden was planted on the site. The prisoners lived in two bunkers dug into the wall of the ravine, kept closed by an iron grate that was shut for the night; opposite them was a machine gun position. The Russian Fedor Yershov, a senior KGB officer, organized an escape group. They managed to find a key to the grates, a wire cutter to cut the chains, and a few knives. On September 28, 1943, they learned through the interpreter (a Jewish prisoner) Yakov Steyuk (Stein) that their work was finished and that the following day they were to be shot and cremated. At about 3 A.M. on September 29, they cut the chains, opened the grates, and escaped under the cover of fog. Many were machine-gunned, among them the leader Yershov, and only 15 succeeded in remaining alive until the liberation of Kiev on November 6, 1943 – among them nine Jews. The State Commission to Investigate Nazi Crimes in Kiev could not locate graves to exhume in Babi Yar, so they set the approxi-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

151

[Yehuda Slutsky]

kiev

mate number at 100,0000. According to Steyuk, who reported daily to the Germans on the numbers of burned bodies, an estimated 45,000 belonged to Jews. To this number we may add figures attained from other exhumed mass graves, such as Syretsk, Darnitsa, and reach an approximate number of 60,000 Jewish victims. Jews were active in the city’s underground, including Shimon Bruz, one of the underground city party committee who died in a fight with the Gestapo, and Tania Markus, who carried out various sabotage acts and was caught and executed in summer 1942. In the struggle against *antisemitism in the Soviet Union, Babi Yar became a symbol of pro-Jewish support, crystallized in the poem Babi Yar by Yevgenii *Yevtushenko. Despite recurring requests by Soviet intellectuals, including Yevtushenko and Viktor Nekrasov, the Soviet authorities refused to erect a monument to those massacred there. Jewish survivors made attempts to hold a memorial day each year, circumspectly choosing the eve of the Day of Atonement. When in early 1959 the ravine was filled with earth, and Babi Yar was turned into a new residential area, there were protests from Jews and nonJews alike. In 1961 a flood swept away the earth and destroyed the houses; many people were drowned. At the end of the 1960s, the ravine of Babi Yar remained a desolate wasteland. “In Babi Yar there is neither monument nor memorial” (Yevtushenko). It was only in 1976 that a stone with an inscription was put there, but it mentioned Soviet citizens, not Jews.

After World War II At the end of World War II, when thousands of Jews began to return to liberated Kiev, they often encountered a hostile attitude on the part of the Ukrainian population, many of whom had been given, or had taken, the dwellings and jobs of the absent Jews. There were even isolated physical clashes between Jews and Ukrainians. In the 1959 census, their number was 154,000 (13.9 of the total population). Nearly 15 of them declared Yiddish to be their mother tongue. Out of about 14,000 Jews living in the smaller towns of the Kiev district, around 33 declared Yiddish to be their mother tongue. In 1979 there were 132,000 Jews in the city. The only synagogue in Kiev, with room for about 1,000 persons, was situated downtown in the Podol quarter. On holidays, particularly on the Day of Atonement, also the memorial day of the Babi Yar massacre, several thousands attended the service, overflowing into the courtyard and the street. A number of services (*minyanim) were held in private homes, but when their existence was discovered, they were closed and the owners severely punished. A mikveh, a place for the ritual slaughtering of poultry, and a maẓ ẓ ah bakery were attached to the synagogue. From 1960 until 1966 the baking of maẓ ẓ ah was prohibited and several Jews were punished for baking them illegally in their homes. The last rabbi to officiate in Kiev was Rabbi Panets, who retired in 1960 and died in 1968; a new rabbi was not appointed. Until 1960 the synagogue board’s chairman was Bardakh; the atmosphere was relatively

relaxed, and visitors from abroad, who arrived in increasing numbers from the late 1950s, were cordially received. The situation changed abruptly in 1961, when a new board, headed by Gendelman, was appointed. Gendelman, in an aggressive manner, implemented meticulously the instructions of the Soviet authorities, harassed members of the congregation, and prevented any contact between them and foreign visitors. He was eventually forced to resign in 1967 because of the growing tension between him and the congregation. In 1959, on the 100t anniversary of the birth of *Shalom Aleichem, a plaque was affixed to the house where he lived before World War I, bearing the text: “Here lived the famous Jewish writer Shalom Aleichem (Rabinovich).” Shortly afterward the plaque was replaced by a new one on which the words “famous Jewish” and “Rabinovich” were omitted. In May 1966 a group of Kiev Jews went to Moscow and submitted a petition to Mikhailova of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, about the establishment of a Yiddish theater in Kiev. The petition stressed the fact that 82 Jewish actors were ready to participate. M. Goldblat, one of the survivors of the Yiddish theater in the U.S.S.R. and the last director of the Yiddish theater in Kiev, declared his readiness to organize the new Yiddish theater. The petition also included a list of plays by Jewish Soviet and classic writers for the repertoire. The petition was rejected. In 1957 four elderly Jews were sentenced in Kiev to several years of imprisonment for “Zionist activity.” One of them was Baruch Mordekhai Weissman, whose Hebrew written diary about the “black years” was smuggled out and published anonymously in Israel, under the title “To my Brother in the State of Israel” (1957). At the trial Weissman was not accused of smuggling out his manuscript, but of keeping Hebrew newspapers and participating in a “Zionist circle.” In 1959 the Kiev municipality opened a new Jewish cemetery and decided to close the old one at Lukyanovka, near Babi Yar, which had been desecrated and partly destroyed during the Nazi occupation. Local and foreign Jews were allowed to transfer the remains of their relatives to the new cemetery if they defrayed the expenses involved. American rabbis arranged for the transfer of the remains of the ḥ asidic rabbis of the Twersky family, and the president of Israel, Iẓ ḥ ak Ben-Zvi, received permission from the Soviet head of state to transfer to Israel the remains and the tombstone of his friend Ber *Borochov (1963). Kiev continued to be a center of Yiddish writers, many of whom had served terms of imprisonment under Stalin. Among them were Itzik Kipnis, Hirsh Polyanker, Nathan Zbara, Eli Schechtman, and Yehiel Falikman. Several books in Yiddish and translations in Russian and Ukrainian were published between 1960 and 1970. The Ukrainian authorities usually prevented Jewish cultural events from being held in the city. During the campaigns against “economic crimes” two Jews, B. Mirski and Shtifzin, who worked in a Kiev publishing house for art books, were sentenced to death (1962). At

152

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

[Benjamin West / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]

kikoine, michel

that time the local Ukrainian press indulged in almost undisguised antisemitic incitement. This campaign culminated in the publication of T. Kichko’s notorious “Judaism without Embellishment” by the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian Republic (1963). Though the book was later censured by the ideological commission of the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party in Moscow, Kichko reappeared in 1968 with a new anti-Jewish book, “Judaism and Zionism,” and was rewarded by the authorities for his achievements in “anti-religious education.” The refusal of the municipal authorities to erect a memorial in Babi Yar, after an exhibition of models for such a memorial was officially arranged in 1965, was ascribed to the popular antisemitic atmosphere prevailing in the city. Protests against this omission were voiced by Russian and Ukrainian writers (e.g., Y. Yevtushenko, V. Nekrasov, Ivan Dzyuba, and others). When an international poultry exhibition took place in Kiev in 1966, and Israel was represented by a stand equipped with exhibits and explanatory literature, tens of thousands of Jews from Kiev and all over the Ukraine streamed there. After the Six-Day War (1967), Jewish national feeling reemerged publicly in Kiev. The anniversary of Babi Yar became a rallying day for Jews, most of them young, who came not only to recite Kaddish but also to express their Jewish identification. Wreaths bearing inscriptions in Yiddish and Hebrew were laid and there were occasional attempts to make speeches, but on every such occasion the police intervened to remove the wreaths and silence the speakers. After one such gathering a young Jewish engineer, Boris Kochubiyevski, was arrested in 1968 on the charge of “spreading slander against the Soviet regime,” after he and his non-Jewish wife Larissa had applied for an exit permit to Israel. In May 1969 he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with hard labor. At his trial Kochubiyevski made a passionate speech, declaring his Zionist credo. In summer 1970 an open letter was published abroad, addressed to the prime minister of Israel, Golda Meir, to UN Secretary General U Thant, and to various international institutions, signed by ten Jews from Kiev who claimed the right to settle in Israel. In August 1970 the same ten persons wrote a second letter to President Shazar, making it known that, after having been refused exit permits, they had renounced their Soviet citizenship and asked to become citizens of Israel. Though most of Kiev’s Jews emigrated in the 1990s, Jewish life revived at the community level as the city became the seat of the Ukrainian chief rabbinate and a Jewish day school was opened. [Zvi Ofer]

anz, Di sovietishe Harugei Malkhus (1962), 44–60, passim; Die Judenpogrome in Russland, 2 (1909), 339–406; G. Reitlinger, Final Solution (1953), 233–5; M. Malishevski, Yevrei v yuzhoy Rossii i v Kiyeve v X–XII vekakh (1878); I. Zinberg, in: Yevreyskaya Starina, 11 (1924), 93–109; M. Kulisher, ibid., 6 (1913), 351–66; Y. Galant, ibid., 264–78; idem, in: Zbirnyk prats Zhydivskoyi istorychno-arkheografichnoyi komisii, 1 (1928), 149–97; Rybynsky, in: Yubileyny zbirnyk D.I. Bagalya (1927), 938–55; E. Turats, K istorii kiyevskogo pogroma (1906); P.T. Neyshtube, Kiyevskaya yevreyskaya bolnitsa 1862–1912 (1912); Badanes, in: Vestnik yevreyskoy obshchiny, 2 (1914), 49–54; 3 (1914), 33–37; Polyakov, in: Yevreyskaya Letopis, 2 (1923), 17–36; 3 (1924), 60–70.

KIEVAL, HAYYIM (Herman) (1920–1991), Conservative rabbi and scholar of Jewish liturgy. Kieval was born and raised in Baltimore where he studied with Dr. Louis *Kaplan at Baltimore Hebrew College and with Prof. William F. *Albright at Johns Hopkins. He received an M.H.L. and was ordained as a rabbi by the *Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) in 1942. Kieval served as a congregational rabbi for over 40 years, including 31 years at Temple Israel in Albany, New York. The congregation created its own day school as well as a Hebrewspeaking day camp called Camp Givah. It also produced scholars of international renown such as Robert Alter and Robert Chazin as well as numerous rabbis. He was heavily involved in ecumenical work, teaching at Notre Dame University, Princeton Theological Seminary, and Siena College, where he founded and directed the Institute for Jewish-Christian Studies. Kieval’s main academic interest was Jewish liturgy. From 1958 to 1980 he served as visiting associate professor of liturgy in the Cantorial School of the Jewish Theological Seminary. He also served as committee member or advisor for Conservative prayer books (1961–85) and published a series of scholarly articles about Jewish liturgy. His magnum opus is The High Holy Days: A Commentary on the Prayerbook of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Book One on Rosh Hashanah was published in 1959. It was republished together with Book Two: Kol Nidre Night in 2004. The text is aimed at laypeople while the footnotes are intended for rabbis and scholars. It is considered by many to be the best English-language commentary on the High Holiday Mahzor. [David Golinkin (2nd ed.)]

KIKOINE, MICHEL (1891–1968), French painter, born in Gomel, Russia, and a member of the School of Paris. As a Jew he was not permitted to study art at the Royal Academy in St. Petersburg, and therefore moved to Paris in 1912 where he joined the Académie des Beaux Arts and associated with his fellow Russian Jews, *Soutine and Kremègne. Kikoine visited Israel in 1950 and 1953. In 1956 he executed a series of colored lithographs titled Children of Israel. Primarily a colorist, Kikoine claimed to be influenced by Courbet, with his feeling for the organic life of nature. His paintings of figures and landscape are subtle and poetic, making a slow impact.

Bibliography: A. Harkavy, Ḥ adashim gam Yeshanim (1886– 1912), no. 1, 6–12; no. 2, 13–17; I.N. Darevsky, Le-Korot ha-Yehudim beKiev (1902); Ettinger, in: Zion, 21 (1956), 107–42; idem, in: Roth, Dark Ages, index; Gurevich, in: Shriftn far Ekonomik un Statistik, 1 (1928), 104–5; J. Lestschinsky, in: Bleter far Yidishe Demografye, Statistik un Ekonomik, 5 (1925), 149–67; A. Druyanow, in: Reshummot, 3 (1923), 221–36; A.A. Friedman, Sefer ha-Zikhronot (1926), 195–227, 315–97; A. Golomb, A Halber Yorhundert Yidishe Dertsiung (1957), 95–114; B. Dinur, Bi-Ymei Milḥ amah u-Mahpekhah (1960), 311–420; A. Pomer-

Bibliography: Catalogue of Exhibition at the Redfern Gallery, London (1955), introduction; George, in: Roth, Art, 660–1.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

153

kilayim

KILAYIM (Heb. ‫) ִּכלְ ַאיִ ם‬, the name of a tractate in the Mishnah, Tosefta and Jerusalem Talmud dealing with several biblical prohibitions of mixed species. The Torah (Lev. 19:19; Deut. 22:9–11) lists a number of different examples of mixtures that are prohibited as mixed species. The halakhah reflected in the Mishnah and related works classifies the prohibitions under at least five categories: (1) interbreeding of animals (Ch. 8); (2) planting mixed seeds (Chs. 2 and 3), understood to include the grafting of trees (1:4, 7–8); (3) sha’atnez: mixing wool and linen in garments (Ch. 9); (4) planting grain or greens in a vineyard (Chs. 4–7); (5) ploughing or doing other work with two different species of animal (8:2–4). In its ten chapters, the Mishnah Kilayim deals with the regulations governing all five. In contrast to the assumption of the rabbinic halakhah, mixed seeds was not accepted as a separate biblical prohibition by some early traditions, who applied the relevant scriptural expression to the prohibition of grain in a vineyard. Although the kil’a’im laws themselves were derived from a relatively straightforward reading of the Torah, the details discussed in the tractate were deduced through the exercise of logic, analogies with other areas of law, or by application of the general rules to specific objects and situations. Jewish thinkers through the ages have speculated about the rationale for this prohibition, or have classified it as an unexplained or mysterious ordinance; however, the Mishnah and talmudic works deal with the technicalities of deriving and applying the law and not with its purpose. Because the prohibitions only apply to the mixing of distinct species, but not to variants of a single species, Mishnah 1:1–6 deals with the botanical or biological classifications of seeds, trees or animals with a view to determining which are or are not separate species. There is evidence that the earlier stratum of halakhah, as represented by Beit Shammai, held to a stricter position that forbade even the mixing of sub-species (see Tosefta and Jerusalem Talmud 1:4). The rabbis’ interpretations can be better understood when compared with ancient naturalists, as well as with the agricultural realia of Israel. Important contributions to the elucidation of kilayim from those perspectives have been made by I.E. Loew, S. Lieberman, and J. Feliks. On the whole, the halakhic classifications seem to owe more to popular usage and terminology than to scientific biology. Questions dealt with in the Mishnah include the amount or proportion of the prohibited species that renders the field prohibited; separation of different species by visible barriers or distances (Ch. 3); procedures for changing a field over from one crop to another without leaving forbidden traces of the previous crop (3:6–7). Suggestions are offered on how to grow several species of greens of legumes in a small patch by separating them into distinct geometric patterns (3:1 etc.). The prohibition of kilayim in the vineyard is spelled out very clearly in the Torah, along with the explicit penalty “lest the fruit of your seed which you have sown, and the fruit of your vineyard, be defiled”; hence it is treated more stringently,

and the produce of such a mixture does not become permitted after the fact, as would occur in the case of mixed seeds. The sages cited in the Mishnah Kilayim cover all the generations of tannaitic activity, from the days of the Temple (Eliezer ben Jacob) through to the scholars of Jabneh, Rabbi Akiva and his principal disciples. The Jerusalem Talmud, in addition to its commentary on the laws of the Mishnah and Tosefta, contains an aggadic digression (9:3, 32b) with biographical and hagiographical stories about Rabbi *Judah haNasi and his contemporaries, material that was reworked in a less authentic version in TB, BM 83bff.).

154

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: J. Feliks, Ha-Ḥ akla’ut be-Ereẓ Yisrael bi-Tekufat ha-Mishnah ve-ha-Talmud. (1963); idem, Kilei Zera’im ve-Harkavah: Masekhet Kilayim (1967); S. Friedman, “La-Aggadah ha-Historit ba-Talmud ha-Bavli,” in: S. Friedman (ed.), S. Lieberman Memorial Volume (1993), 335, 11p.; I. Loew, Die Flore der Juden (1967); I. Mandelbaum, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Agriculture: Kilayim (1982); I. Mandelbaum, The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation: Kilayim. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism, eds. J. Neusner, W.S. Green, and C. Goldscheider (1990). [Stephen G. Wald (2nd ed.)]

KILIYA (Rom. Chilia-Nouaˇ ), city in Izmail district, Bessarabia, today Moldova. Jews are first mentioned there in 1545. In the latter part of the century Jewish merchants from Constantinople used to pass through Kiliya on their way to Lvov. Information on a Jewish community is available only from the early 18t century (1713; 1715). There were 27 Jewish families (out of a total of 478) in 1808, and 249 persons in 1827. The community grew as a result of Jewish immigration into Bessarabia during the 19t century, and numbered 2,153 (18.5 of the total) in 1897. In 1930 there were 1,969 Jews (11.3 of the total). Before World War II the communal institutions included two old-age homes and a *Tarbut school and kindergarten. In 1940 it was annexed by the Soviet Union and incorporated in the Moldavian SSR. The Jews were transferred to Bolgrad and killed there by the German and Romanian armies when they entered Bessarabia in July 1941. [Eliyahu Feldman]

KIMBERLEY, city in the Western Province of the Cape Province, South Africa, center of the South African diamond industry. Jews flocked to Kimberley on the discovery of diamonds there in 1870, and as early as 1871 a congregation, named the Griqualand West Hebrew Congregation, was formed, and the first synagogue was built in 1876. Among the early settlers were Barney *Barnato, his brother Harry, and his cousin David (later Sir David) *Harris. The first temporary minister was the Rev. Joel *Rabinowitz who returned to South Africa from England after his retirement. The first permanent minister was Meyer Mendelsohn. Until the founding of Johannesburg in 1886, Kimberley was home to the second largest Jewish community in South Africa, numbering over 2,000 souls at its peak. No fewer than five Jews have served as mayors of Kimberley: William Sagar (1906–08), Ernest (later Sir Ernest)

kimḤ I, david

Oppenheimer (1913–15), Bernard Cohen (1931–32), Gustave Haberfeld (1953–55, 1966–67), Lionel Jawno (1959–61), and C. Sussman (1964–65). Sir David Harris, who also commanded the Kimberley Town Guard during the famous Boer siege of the town in the Anglo-Boer War, was MP for Kimberley and Griqualand West from 1897–1929. The discovery of gold on the Rand drew many Jews from Kimberley to Johannesburg. By 1970, the Jewish population of Kimberley had dropped to about 600 and by 2005, fewer than 50 Jews remained. [Louis Isaac Rabinowitz / David Saks (2nd ed.)]

KIMCHE, JON (1909–1994), British editor and author. Born in Switzerland, he was educated in England where he took up journalism and specialized in Middle East affairs. From 1942 to 1946 he was editor of the Labour weekly Tribune. Kimche was a close friend of George Orwell, whom he first met in 1934 when they both worked as assistants in a bookshop in Hampstead, London. Kimche edited the Jewish Observer and Middle East Review, published by the British Zionist Federation, from 1952 to 1967. From 1968 he edited the monthly New Middle East. He wrote several books on the Middle East, including Both Sides of the Hill (1960), an account of the Israeli War of Liberation, written with his brother David Kimche; Seven Fallen Pillars (1953); and The Unromantics (1968), dealing with the Balfour Declaration. Add. Bibliography: S. Wadhams (ed.), Remembering Orwell (1984).

KIMḤ I, DAVID (known as Radak from the acronym of Rabbi David Kimḥ i; Maistre Petit; 1160?–1235?), grammarian and exegete of Narbonne, Provence. The son of Joseph *Kimḥ i and brother and pupil of Moses *Kimḥ i, David was a teacher in his native town and was active in public causes. He is known to have participated in the judgment (between 1205 and 1218) of several contentious persons from Barcelona who dishonored the memory of Rashi. During the Maimonidean controversy of 1232, he undertook a journey to Toledo to gain the support of Judah *Ibn Alfakhar for the Maimonideans. He was prevented from reaching his destination because of illness but his strong defense of Maimonides and the latter’s followers together with Ibn Alfakhar’s critique of Kimḥ i have been preserved in the correspondence between them (in Koveẓ Teshuvot ha-Rambam, Leipzig, 1859, pt. 3).

the material and the popularization of the innovations of his father and brother. These include the division of the vowels into five long and five short, the treatment of the nifal as the passive of the kal, the recognition of the dagesh lene, etc. Seeing himself only as a “gleaner after the reapers,” Kimḥ i nevertheless made some original contributions, including his distinguishing of the vav consecutive (vav ha-sherut) from the vav conjunctive and his concern for the continued development of the language through the recognition of the legitimacy of post-biblical forms. In point of fact, Kimḥ i was criticized for being highly unconventional as a grammarian by such figures as Joseph ibn *Kaspi, Profiat *Duran, David b. Solomon *Ibn Yaḥ ya, and Abraham de *Balmes. He found advocates, however, in the Magen David of Abraham b. Elisha b. Mattathias, the Mikhlol Yofi of Solomon ibn Melekh, and the writings of Elijah *Levita, and it was due to the Mikhlol and the Shorashim that most of the works of his predecessors sank into oblivion. In Jewish circles, the phrase “If there is no flour [kemaḥ , etymon of Kimḥ i], there is no Torah” (Avot 3:17) was applied to him, while his influence on the Christian Hebraists of the Renaissance was profound. *Reuchlin’s Rudimenta Linguae Hebraicae and Lexicon Hebraicum (1506) and Santes Pagninus’ Institutiones (1520) and Thesaurus (1529) are basically reworkings of Kimḥ i, while Sebastian *Muenster’s writings betray his influence heavily. Masorah Much of the material in the Mikhlol was abridged in the Et Sofer (Lyck, 1864), a manual for copyists of the Bible, necessitated by widespread ignorance among scribes and the proliferation of biblical manuscript traditions in the 12t century. In it he treats in detail such problems as the keri and the ketiv and the accents. His interest in masorah was not limited to this treatise, for numerous observations in this area are recorded in the commentaries. Especially noteworthy is his theory that the keri and the ketiv developed out of a confusion of readings in the time of the men of the *Great Synagogue who, according to him, established the text (“Introduction to Joshua”). His concern for the establishment of the correct text is attested to by his travels in pursuit of old manuscripts.

Philology Kimḥ i’s first work was his philological treatise, the Mikhlol, written in two sections; the grammatical portion (Ḥ elek haDikduk) which itself came to be known as the Mikhlol (Constantinople, 1532), and the lexicon (Ḥ elek ha-Inyan) known independently as the Sefer ha-Shorashim (before 1480). Kimḥ i’s purpose in composing the Mikhlol was to provide a middle ground between the lengthy and detailed treatises of Jonah *Ibn Janaḥ and Judah b. David *Ḥ ayyuj and the extreme brevity and concision of Abraham *Ibn Ezra and the elder Kimḥ is. His chief contribution in grammar lies in the arrangement of

Exegesis Kimḥ i began his exegetical activity with a commentary to the Book of Chronicles (in Rabbinic Bible, Venice, 1548) written in response to the request of a student of his father’s for an exegesis of that book in accordance with the plain sense or derekh ha-peshat in contrast to the homiletic commentaries which were then prevalent. This was followed by commentaries to Genesis (ed. by R.L. Kirchheim, 1842), all the prophetic books (Guadalajara, 1482), and Psalms (1477). In all of these, Kimḥ i endeavored to utilize the methodology of Ibn Ezra and the elder Kimḥ is, stressing scientific philological analysis and de-emphasizing homiletical digression. Unlike these predecessors, however, Kimḥ i relied heavily on rabbinic literature, distinguishing between perush or interpretation which conformed to his standards of peshat, and purely homiletical in-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

155

kimḤ I, dov

terpretations or derashot, many of which he included nonetheless for added interest. In his exegesis too, Kimḥ i strove for clarity and readibility in an attempt to depart from the compression and obscurity of his predecessors. Philosophical Interests Kimḥ i read widely in philosophic and scientific literature and was strongly influenced by the rationalism of Ibn Ezra and Maimonides. He frequently alluded to philosophical matters as an aid to exegesis on the one hand and in an attempt to popularize such studies on the other. He was no original philosopher and his theories are adaptations of those of his predecessors. Thus his theory of prophecy parallels that of Maimonides in the discussion of the prerequisites for and the levels of prophecy, although Kimḥ i goes farther in recognizing the possibility of the prophethood of a gentile. He follows Maimonides too on the problem of providence in saying that individual providence is subject to intellectual attainment, although he expresses the somewhat independent view that animals may be subject to individual providence in the event that their actions benefit or harm a human being. Kimḥ i generally attempted to explain miracles naturalistically or to underplay them. There is considerable discussion of the classification of the commandments with reliance principally on pre-Maimonidean terminology and conceptions, but there is little actual analysis of the “reasons for the commandments” (ta’amei ha-mitzvot) since he did not write on the legal portions of the Pentateuch. Using the material in Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed as a model, Kimḥ i wrote two very detailed “esoteric” (nistar) commentaries to Genesis 2:7–5:1 (see bibliography) and to the first chapter of Ezekiel (in the Rabbinical Bible, Warsaw, 1902). Kimḥ i’s dissemination of philosophic material in the commentaries, intended to whet the appetite of the general reader, came under severe censure from a number of authorities, including Judah ibn Alfakhar, Jacob *Emden, and *David b. Solomon ibn Abi Zimra, despite the fact that, with the exception of the two philosophical commentaries, his rationalistic material was cited with considerable discretion. Ironically, Kimḥ i’s commentaries were considered deficient in their rationalism by *Immanuel b. Solomon of Rome who himself was given to allegorical interpretation.

for the Church and lays great stress on the superior morality and religiosity of the Jews. He defends the taking of interest from a gentile “for in general they hate Israel” but discourages exacting it from a righteous gentile (Ps. 22:23). Although very much aware of Israel’s tribulations in exile, Kimḥ i believed in a special providence for the Jewish people which paralleled the special providence of the sage, in that Israel is a nation of sages “who meditated on My deeds and confessed My unity” (Isa. 43:7). Never explaining how this providence is manifested, he limited himself to frequent references to the future redemption in the messianic age. The polemic material in the Psalms commentary was collected and printed separately as Teshuvot la-Noẓ erim in the Altdorf (1644) edition of Lipmann Muehlhausen’s Sefer ha-Niẓ ẓ aḥ on. The so-called “Vikku’aḥ ha-RaDaK,” printed in the Milḥ emet Ḥ ovah (Constantinople, 1710), has been shown to be falsely attributed to Kimḥ i. Spurious Writings Several other works have been wrongly ascribed to Kimḥ i, including a commentary to Ethics of the Fathers (Turin Siddur, 1525); the commentaries on part of the Guide and the creed of Maimonides; the commentary on Pittum ha-Ketoret (Koveẓ Devarim Neḥ madim, 1902); the Perush Sheḥ itah (H.B. Levy, Mikdash Me’at, Ms. 152, 4); a commentary on Ruth (published by J. Mercier, Paris, 1563). There are several medieval testimonies to commentaries on the remaining four books of the Pentateuch and on Proverbs but these, like the Job commentary in I. Schwartz’s Tikvat Enosh (1868), may have been culled from his philological writings. Bibliography: A. Geiger, in: Oẓ ar Neḥ mad, 2 (1857), 157ff.; L. Finkelstein (ed.), The Commentary… on Isaiah (1926), includes the esoteric commentary to Genesis; H. Cohen (ed.), The Commentary… on Hosea (1929). Other critical editions are: S.M. Schiller-Szinessy (ed.), The First Book of the Psalms… (1883); J. Bosniak (ed.), Commentary… Fifth Book of Psalms (1954); S.I. Esterson (ed.), The Commentary on Psalms (42–72), in: HUCA, 10 (1935). The Mikhlol was edited and translated by W. Chomsky (19522). Best edition of Shorashim is by F. Lebrecht and J.H.R. Biesenthal (1847). The extensive bibliography in EJ, 9 (1932), 1239 should be supplemented by Melamed, in: Aresheth, 2 (1960), 35–95; Talmage, in: HTR, 60 (1967), 323–48; idem, in: HUCA, 38 (1967), 213–35; 39 (1968), 177–218. [Frank Talmage]

Polemics The commentaries contain a considerable amount of polemical material, much of it based on the Sefer ha-Berit of Joseph Kimḥ i. He attacks a number of christological interpretations by demonstrating Christian “corruption” of the text (Isa. 2:22; Ps. 22:17; 110:1, etc.) or the inapplicability (Isa. 7:14; Ezra 44:2) or irrationality (Ps. 87, end; 110, end, etc.) of the interpretation. He inveighs frequently against the allegorical mode of the Christian interpreters (Ps. 19:10; 119 passim, etc.). Certain basic questions in the Jewish-Christian controversy, chief among which is the identity of the “true Israel,” were frequently raised. Kimḥ i wards off the attempt of Christian theologians to claim the name of Israel or other biblical names of the Jewish people

KIMḤ I, DOV (originally Meller, Berish; 1889–1961), Hebrew author, translator, and editor. Born in Jaslo, Galicia, Kimḥ i became an ardent Zionist in his youth and immigrated to Palestine in 1908. He settled in Jerusalem, and from 1912 until his retirement taught at the Reḥ aviah Gymnasium, Jerusalem. He made his literary debut in the journal Ha-Miẓ peh in 1905, under his original name Berish Meller. After his arrival in Jerusalem he began writing novels, short stories, and essays, and also engaged extensively in translation work. His fiction covers a wide range of settings from his native Galicia, through Western Europe, to Ereẓ Israel. In addition to several works on the Bible, two collections of essays, and numerous translations, he published anthologies of world literature and of Israel stories. His other works include Ma’barot (1923); Sefer ha-Ki-

156

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kimḤ I, joseph

lyonot (1926); Ha-Kufsah ha-Keḥ ullah (1926); Emesh (1927); and Ẓ iyyurim me-Olam Nishkaḥ (1943). His novel Beit Ḥ efeẓ (1951), a “European novel” (Menahem Peri) of love intrigues and betrayals set against the background of Jerusalem on the eve of World War I, gained much attention upon its “rediscovery” and publication by Peri in 1993.

KIMḤ I, JOSEPH (also known as Maistre Petit; Rikam, from the acronym of Rabbi Joseph Kimḥ i; c. 1105–c. 1170), grammarian, exegete, translator, and polemist. Kimḥ i migrated from Spain in the wake of the Almohad persecutions and settled permanently in Narbonne. Overshadowed by his more prominent sons, Moses and David *Kimḥ i, he never-

theless performed a major function as a pioneer scholar by helping to introduce the learning and methodology of Spanish Jewry into Christian Europe. In this respect, his activities paralleled those of Abraham Ibn Ezra, whom Kimḥ i probably knew personally and who cited him in his writings. He had several disciples, including his son Moses, Menahem b. Simeon of Posquières, R. Solomon b. Isaac ha-Nesiah, and Joseph ibn Zabara. He composed works for the benefit of his countrymen who could not read the grammars written in Arabic, especially those of *Ḥ ayyuj and *Ibn Janaḥ , whom he generally followed. In the Sefer ha-Zikkaron (published by W. Bacher, 1888), he introduced the concept of five long and five short vowels, presented the pi’el and the hofal as distinct conjugations, and provided a list of nominal forms. In addition to its influence on the grammars written by his sons, the Zikkaron was used by Elijah Levita and Abraham de Balmes. His second grammatical treatise, the Sefer ha-Galui (published by H.J. Mathews, 1887), consists of two parts; a critique of R. Jacob *Tam’s Hakhra’ot on the Maḥ beret of *Menahem b. Jacob ibn Saruq and a compilation of Kimḥ i’s own critical remarks on points in the Maḥ beret left untouched by Tam. A defense of the latter by Benjamin of Canterbury has been incorporated into the text of the Sefer ha-Galui. As an exegete, Kimḥ i stressed the “plain sense” or peshat of Scripture in contrast to the homiletical school of exegesis prevalent in the Provence of his day. In addition to the exegetical material in his grammars, he composed the following commentaries: Sefer ha-Torah on the Pentateuch (published by H. Gad, in Ḥ amishah Me’orot Gedolim, 1953); Sefer ha-Miknah on the Prophets (no longer extant); on Proverbs (entitled Sefer Ḥ ikkah by the publisher, 1868); on Job (published incompletely by I. Schwarz in Tikvat Enosh, 1868); on Song of Songs (in Ms.). An unknown commentary Ḥ ibbur ha-Leket was ascribed to him by his son David. Much of Kimḥ i’s exegesis influenced and was cited in the commentaries of his sons, of Menahem b. Simeon, and of Jacob b. Asher. Kimḥ i prepared a translation of Baḥ ya ibn Paquda’s Ḥ ovot ha-Levavot (fragment published in the I.A. Benjacob edition (1846) of Ibn Tibbon’s translation). He was the author too of the Shekel ha-Kodesh, extant in two recensions (one of which was published by H. Gollancz in 1919), a rhymed collection of gnomic sayings based upon the Mivḥ ar ha-Peninim of Solomon ibn *Gabirol. Kimḥ i himself composed a number of liturgical works which found their way into the prayer books of several communities. His polemical treatise, the Sefer ha-Berit (Constantinople, 1710), vies with Jacob b. Reuben’s Milḥ amot ha-Shem for the honor of being the first anti-Christian polemical work written in Europe. Cast as a dialogue between the “believer” (ma’amin) and the “heretic” (min), the work attacks certain basic christological interpretations of scriptural passages, in addition to such doctrines as original sin, the incarnation, and the relative morality of Jews and Christians including the question of lending money on interest. The Sefer ha-Berit especially influenced the polemics of Kimḥ i’s son David and of Naḥ manides.

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

157

Bibliography: M. Rabinson, Deyokena’ot mi-Soferei ha-Dor (1932), 49–52; M. Carmon, Dor le-Dor (1956), 150–3; Kressel, Leksikon, 2 (1967), 774–6. Add. Bibliography: G. Shaked, Ha-Mesapper Dov Kimhi, in: Yerushalayim, 9–10 (1975), 239–250; J. Amoial, in: Beit Ḥ efeẓ (1993), 225–236; A. Lipsker, “Ẓ amarot shel Hazayah,” in: Bikkoret u-Farshanut, 29 (1993), 121–142; I. Rikin, in: Maariv (March 19, 1993); B. Gur, in: Haaretz (March 19, 1993); N. Govrin, “Mi-Ganenet Yerushalmit le-Eshet ha-Olam ha-Gadol” (on Kimhi’s Al Shivah Yamim), in: Yerushalayim, 20–21 (2004), 241–257. [Getzel Kressel (2nd ed.)]

KIMḤ I, JACOB BEN SAMUEL (c. 1720–1800), talmudist and author in London. Jacob Kimḥ i was born in Constantinople where his father Samuel, whose responsa are mentioned in the Masat Moshe of Moses *Israel (ḥ M nos. 50–51; Constantinople, 1734), was rabbi. At an early age Kimḥ i undertook journeys through Europe, finally arriving in London, where he remained until his death. There he engaged in business but became well known through his extensive knowledge of Talmud. Ḥ .J.D. *Azulai made his acquaintance in London and describes him as “an acute and erudite” scholar. He was the author of Shoshannat Ya’akov (Sulzbach, 1748), novellae to tractates Beẓ ah and Ta’anit. He states that his aim was “to avoid casuistry and hairsplitting and establish the plain meaning of the Talmud in order to arrive at the law”; he sought to answer difficulties raised against the statements of Rashi and the tosafists. His She’elah u-Teshuvah be-Inyan Bedikat haRe’ah ve-ha-Sheḥ itah u-Vedikah be-London (“A Responsum on the Subject of the Slaughtering of Cattle and the Examination of their Lungs in London”; Altona, 1760) was occasioned by a dispute that broke out in London between 1755 and 1766 in connection with *sheḥ itah, which led to a schism between the Ashkenazi and Sephardi communities, in consequence of the accusations of the Sephardi shoḥ et Ḥ ayyim Albahali (1755) that the slaughterers did not sufficiently supervise the examination of the meat after sheḥ itah. Kimḥ i published his work, in which he supported the view of Albahali, when the dispute was at its height. Bibliography: Azulai, 1 (1852), 177 no. 149; idem, Ma’gal Tov ha-Shalem, ed. by A. Freimann (1934), 31f.; C. Duschinsky, in: JHSET, 7 (1915), 272–90; idem, The Rabbinate of the Great Synagogue (1921), 7 n. 1, 279, 282. [Yehoshua Horowitz]

kimḤ I, mordecai

Bibliography: Blueth, in: MWJ, 18 (1891), 1ff.; 19 (1892), 89ff.; Eppenstein, in: MGWJ, 40 (1896), 173ff.; 41 (1897), 83ff.; Geiger, in: Oẓ ar Neḥ mad, 1 (1856), 97–119; 2 (1857), 98f.; 3 (1860), 114f.; Marx, in: HUCA, 4 (1927), 433–48; Newman, in: Jewish Studies in Memory of I. Abrahams (1927), 365–72. [Frank Talmage]

KIMḤ I, MORDECAI (second half of 13t century), a Provençal rabbi and halakhic authority of Carpentras, grandson of David *Kimḥ i. Urbach’s opinion that he was the maternal grandfather of *Perez b. Elijah cannot be accepted since Mordecai was an older contemporary of Solomon b. Abraham *Adret, and around 1305 wrote a moderate and tolerant responsum in reply to *Abba Mari b. Moses’ request for his opinion on the ban on the study of philosophy (Abba Mari b. Moses, Minḥ at Kena’ot, no. 9), whereas Perez had died some 10 years earlier. Various collections of his responsa are extant, one of which was published by A. Sofer in Teshuvot Ḥ akhmei Provinẓ yah (1967). His son, ISAAC (or Maistre Petit de Nions, as he was known in French), also a well-known scholar, appears to have lived in Narbonne, and it is possible that he married there into the family of *David b. Levi, author of Sefer haMikhtam, since he refers to him as “my relation.” Isaac was in close correspondence with Solomon b. Abraham Adret, many of whose responsa are addressed to him. A collection of his responsa was published together with those of his father in the above-mentioned work. Isaac also wrote commentaries, novellae, and halakhic rulings on most of the Talmud and on other branches of scholarship (Isaac de Lattes, Sha’arei Ẓ iyyon, ed. by S. Buber (1885), 47), and one of his responsa was published with those of Isaac de Lattes (1860). Six of his azharot for the afternoon service of the Feast of Shavuot appear in the Maḥ zor Carpentras (ed. Amsterdam, 1759).

ster under the title Liber viarum linguae sacrae (Paris, 1520). Moses also wrote Sekhel Tov (published by D. Castelli, in REJ, 28 (1894), 212–27; 29 (1894), 100–10), a brief supplementary treatise dealing principally with the theoretical classification of nouns, particles, and verbs. A Sefer Taḥ boshet, apparently dealing with anomalous grammatical forms, is no longer extant. In his exegesis, Moses followed the method of literal interpretation employed by his father and Ibn Ezra. Preferring to comment on generally neglected books of the Bible, he composed commentaries on Proverbs, Ezra, and Nehemiah – which have been printed in rabbinic Bibles but ascribed to Abraham Ibn Ezra – and a commentary on Job (published by I. Schwarz in Tikvat Enosh, 1868). Ta’anug Nefesh, an ethical work, has also been attributed to him. Moses Kimḥ i exercised considerable influence on his brother David, who referred to him as “my brother, my teacher.” Through Muenster’s translation, his Mahalakh became one of the most popular grammars used by the 16t-century Christian Hebraists and was reprinted many times. Bibliography: Geiger, in: Oẓ ar Neḥ mad, 1 (1856), 118; 2 (1857), 18–24; F.J. Ortuta y Murgoito, Moisés Kimchi y su obra Sekel Tob (1920); Bacher, in: REJ, 21 (1890), 281–5; J.B. Sermoneta, in: Seritti in Memoria di L. Carpi (1968), 59–100. [Frank Talmage]

KIMḤ I, MOSES (known by the acronym Remak, i.e., Rabbi Moses Kimḥ i; d. c. 1190), grammarian and exegete of Narbonne, Provence; son of Joseph *Kimḥ i and brother of David *Kimḥ i. As a grammarian, he generally followed his father, although his work shows traces of the influence of Abraham *Ibn Ezra, especially in terminology. He was little concerned with phonology and stressed the morphology of the verb. In the Mahalakh Shevilei ha-Da’at (Pesaro, 1508), Moses introduced the use of the root pkd (‫ )פקד‬in paradigms and, considering nifal the passive of kal, arranged the conjugations in the order: kal, nifal, pi’el, pu’al, hifil, hofal, po’el, hitpa’el. These innovations became common in later grammars. The Mahalakh was glossed both by Elijah Levita and Shabbetai b. Isaac of Przemysl and was translated into Latin by Sebastian Muen-

KIMḤ I, RAPHAEL ISRAEL BEN JOSEPH (first half of 18t century), emissary of Safed. Kimḥ i was born in Constantinople where he studied under Ḥ ayyim b. Isaac Raphael *Alfandari. When his teacher moved to Ereẓ Israel in 1713 he followed him and settled in Safed, where he studied under Jacob Vilna Ashkenazi. In 1728 he traveled to Italy as an emissary of the Safed community and was in Mantua in 1729. In Padua he was a guest of the father of Moses Ḥ ayyim *Luzzatto, where he immersed himself in Luzzatto’s works and in the polemic (of 1730) which raged about them, justifying Luzzatto’s views. A responsum written by him to Raphael *Meldola during this visit – in Venice 1730 – on the laws of writing a *Sefer Torah is included in Mayim Rabbim (1737). From Venice, Kimḥ i sent a letter to Corfu (1730) in which he complained of discrimination against Safed in the matter of contributions assigned to Ereẓ Israel. In his letter he stresses the critical situation of the Safed community and demands greater interest in the lot of his town as against the other “holy towns.” Kimḥ i was requested by the Safed community to go to Corfu, but the Venetian rabbis persuaded him to delay this journey because of the state of his health and promised to undertake the task themselves in Corfu. He died during his mission, apparently before 1737. In that year his brother Abraham published from his literary remains the Avodat Yisrael on the order of the Temple service on the Day of Atonement. Comments on this work are to be found in the Shifat Revivim (1788) of David *Pardo, who also mentions it in his Shoshannim le-David (1752). Besides this Kimḥ i left a commentary in manuscript called Einei Yisrael on the Sefer Mitzvot Katan which was seen by Ḥ .J.D. Azulai.

158

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: Gross, Gal Jud, 607–8, no. 3; Landshuth, Ammudei, 124; A. Sofer (ed.), Teshuvot Ḥ akhmei Provinẓ yah (1967), xxiv (introd.); Neubauer, in: REJ, 12 (1886), 80–91; I. Lévi, ibid., 38 (1899), 103–22; 39 (1899), 76–84, 226–41; Poznański, ibid., 40 (1900), 91–94; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 423, index, S.V. Yiẓ ḥ ak Kimḥ i (ben Mordekhai); Urbach, Tosafot, 451; Zunz, Lit Poesie, 505; Zunz, Gesch, 466; L. Zunz, in: AWJD, 3 (1839), 679ff.; Frankl, in: MGWJ, 33 (1884), 556–7. [Israel Moses Ta-Shma]

kimmel, sidney

Bibliography: Rosanes, Togarmah, 5 (1937–38), 291–2; Yaari, Sheluḥ ei, 433–5; I. Ben-Zvi, in: Sinai, 27 (1950), 80–86; idem, in: Sinai Sefer Yovel (1958), 13–26. [Yehoshua Horowitz]

KIMḤ I, SOLOMON BEN NISSIM JOSEPH DAVID (mid19t century), talmudist of Constantinople. Solomon’s father, who died in 1836, was rabbi in Constantinople; Solomon himself was at the height of his activity in 1861 and was still alive in 1870. He wrote Melekhet Shelomo (1862) consisting of responsa, novellae to various tractates, and sermons; Yakhil Shelomo (1865), novellae to the four parts of Jacob b. Asher’s Tur; Yemei Shelomo (1874), novellae to Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah. The Melekhet Shelomo (YD no. 4, p. 8b) includes his interesting reply to the question whether a Jew may teach the Oral Law to Karaites. He takes up a consistent and extreme attitude, insisting that Karaites of his day are to be regarded as non-Jews and that, as their intention is undoubtedly merely to embarrass Jewish scholars, such teaching is forbidden. This ruling gave rise to considerable controversy and the Karaites reacted strongly in an article in the Journal Israélite (no. 513/14, December 1866) demanding that Yakir Gheron, the chief rabbi of Constantinople, intervene in the matter. The latter in fact ordered the burning of all copies of the book that could be found and severely censured the author. In accordance with his view of the status of the Karaites, Kimḥ i laid down that one may use milk drawn by a Karaite on a day which is a Jewish festival but not according to the Karaite calendar (Yakhil Shelomo, 35:b).

he was a member of the Boethus family, but it is more probable that he was a member of the Kimḥ it family (see Schuerer, Gesch, 2:275). The Talmud praises the members of this family: “all flour [kemaḥ im] is good but the flour of Kimḥ it is of the best [solet]” (TJ, Meg. 1:12, 72a). Bibliography: Klausner, Bayit Sheni, 4 (19502), 304; 5 (19512), 22, 26. [Edna Elazary]

KIMḤ IT, high priestly family in the last years of the Second Temple. Although the Talmud states: “Kimḥ it had seven sons, each of whom served as high priest” (TJ, Meg. 1:12, 72a; Yoma 47a), the only members of the family known as such were: SIMEON son of Kimḥ it, high priest in 17–18 C.E., also known as Ishmael. He was appointed by the procurator Valerius Gratus and deposed after a year when the high priesthood was given to Joseph *Caiaphas (Jos., Ant., 18:34). The Talmud relates that on the Day of Atonement he fell into conversation with an Arab ruler and inadvertently became unclean. His brother Yeshovav was substituted for him so that their mother saw both her sons high priests on the same day. JOSEPH son of Kimḥ it, high priest 44–47 C.E., probably brother of the above. After the emperor Claudius granted *Herod, king of Chalcis, the right to appoint high priests the latter removed Elionaeus (or Cantheras; see Jos., Ant., 20:16n.) and appointed Joseph to the post. JOSEPH son of Simeon, high priest 61–62 C.E., appointed by Agrippa II in succession to *Ishmael b. Phiabi. He was among the group of priests who escaped to the Roman camp in 70 C.E., after the fall of the fortress *Antonia. Josephus refers to him as “Joseph, son of the high priest Simeon, called Kabi” (Ant., 20:196). This has led some scholars to believe that

KIMMEL, SIDNEY (1928– ), U.S. businessman, philanthropist. The son of a Philadelphia cab driver, Kimmel, a selfmade man, became not only a leading apparel manufacturer but possibly the biggest individual donor to cancer research in the U.S. Although he had virtually no religious education as a child, he became committed to Jewish causes and was a bar mitzvah at the age of 73. A college dropout from Temple University between two tours of duty in the U.S. Army, Kimmel was born and raised in Philadelphia. His first job, setting up pins in a bowling alley, paid $2 a day. He started working in a knitting mill in the 1950s, then was hired by Villager, a Philadelphia sportswear company. Kimmel supervised the knitwear line, Villager’s fastest-growing unit, becoming the company’s president in 1968. The following year, he left to run the Jones apparel division of the conglomerate W.R. Grace. He was joined by designer Rena Rowan, who remained with him for the next 33 years. With a new label, Jones New York, the company produced modestly priced sportswear and suits with a designer look. Kimmel and a partner bought the Jones New York name from Grace in 1975, and Kimmel became chairman. In the 1980s, overexpansion and a problematic licensing deal almost bankrupted him. In 1989, Jones returned to profitability and in 1991 Kimmel took the company public. It became one of the world’s top designers and marketers of branded apparel, footwear, and accessories, boasting such global brands as Jones New York, Lauren by Ralph Lauren, Polo Jeans, Nine West, Evan-Picone, and Gloria Vanderbilt. In 2002, Kimmel stepped down as chief executive officer of Jones Apparel Group, but remained chairman. His other business interests included the Miami Heat basketball team, the Harry Cipriani international restaurant chain, and a movie company, Sidney Kimmel Entertainment. In 1993, Kimmel, who married late in life and has no children, created the Sidney Kimmel Foundation and its subsidiary, the Sidney Kimmel Foundation for Cancer Research. He funded Kimmel Cancer Centers in San Diego, Calif., at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, at Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University, and at New York’s Memorial Sloan-Kettering. His Kimmel Scholars program provides grants to promising young cancer researchers, and he was the top individual donor to the Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts in Philadelphia. Kimmel, together with Rowan, gave $5 million in 1995 for a special exhibitions hall at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C. In 2001, he pledged two $20 million endowments, one to the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, the other to the Raymond and Ruth Perelman Jewish Day School, to be given

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

159

Bibliography: Frankl, in: MGWJ, 33 (1884), 553f., 557f.; A. Galante, Histoire des Juifs d’Istanbul, 1 (1941), 133. [Yehoshua Horowitz]

kinah

after his death. He said he would give both institutions $1 million each every year for the rest of his life. He also pledged $25 million to the National Museum for American Jewish History’s new building being planned for Philadelphia. Among his many honors are the American Jewish Committee’s National Human Relations Award, the Award for Excellence in Corporate Leadership from the Society of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the American Cancer Society’s Humanitarian Award, and Temple University’s Musser Award for Excellence in Leadership. [Mort Sheinman (2nd ed.)]

KINAH (Heb. ‫ ; ִקינָ ה‬pl. ‫ ִקינוֹ ת‬, kinot), poem expressing mourning, pain, and sorrow. One of the earliest poetic forms, it is also termed *hesped (lamentation), from which developed, in the course of time, the customary prose eulogy over the dead (called martiyyah in the Spanish-Arabic communities). Spoken first over important dead of the family or nation (e.g., Gen. 23:2, Jer. 22:18; Zech. 12:10), kinot were subsequently recited over calamities which befell the nation or the country, as well as over oppressive edicts decreed upon the community or upon the people. Professional female (Heb. mekonenot, see Jer. 9:16 and 19) and male mourners (Heb. sofedim, Eccl. 12:5) recited the kinot, some of which they composed themselves. Several ancient kinot are recorded in the Bible, such as David’s kinah over Saul and Jonathan (II Sam. 1:19–27), and the Book of Lamentations – also called “the scroll [or book] of kinot” – a collection of kinot in alphabetical order on the destruction of Jerusalem and the Exile of Israel. The Talmud preserves a number of whole kinot and fragments of kinot (MK 25b). In the Middle Ages, many kinot were composed for various calamities, such as the earthquake in the Sabbatical year (ra’ash shevi’i) in Tiberias and other cities of Israel (YMHSI, 3 (1936), 153–63), the kinah of Solomon ibn *Gabirol on the death of *Jekuthiel (Davidson, Oẓ ar, 2 (1929), 23 no. 525); and the kinah of *Eleazar b. Judah, author of Sefer ha-Roke’aḥ , on the murder of his wife and two daughters (A.M. Habermann (ed.), Gezerot Ashkenaz ve-Ẓ arefat (1946), 165–7). Those composed over the restrictive edicts of the Middle Ages were usually appended to the kinot recited on the Ninth of *Av (Megillat Eikhah and the kinot of Eleazar ha-Kallir), and other fast days. In popular parlance the term kinot is generally used for those recited on the Ninth of Av. Many kinot written for that day start with the word Zion and are thus known as Zionides (see Jerusalem in *Piyyut). Some kinot are without any acrostic; others have an alphabetical acrostic, or one indicating the name of the author, or both; some are also rhymed. Since the first publication of the group of kinot according to the Ashkenazi rite (Cracow, 1585), hundreds of editions have appeared, both with and without commentaries. A scientific edition was published by D. Goldschmidt (1968). The kinot of the Sephardi Jews were published in Seder Arba Ta’aniyyot (Venice, 1590). Many of the kinot of the Middle Ages, however, have not yet been published.

160

Bibliography: Elbogen, Gottesdienst, 229–31; Davidson, Oẓ ar, 4 (1933), 494–6. [Abraham Meir Habermann]

KINDERFREUND, ARYEH LEIB (1788–1837), Galician Haskalah poet. Born in Zamosc (Poland), the son of a wellto-do family, he received a broad Jewish and secular education. His family’s fortunes declined, and he moved to Galicia and became a teacher. For a time he taught in Tarnopol, in the Hebrew school established by J. *Perl; later he moved to Jaroslaw, and finally to Brody. He published one collection of poems, Shirim Shonim (Lemberg, 1834), which includes occasional lyric poems and pastoral odes. He left in manuscript form a study of the Hebrew language (he attempted to prove that it is the mother of all tongues), in which he also deals with tonal poetic meter in Hebrew, in which he was a pioneer, using examples from his own works. Bibliography: Waxman, Literature, 3 (19602), 197f.; Kressel, Leksikon, 2 (1967), 754. [Getzel Kressel]

KINDERTRANSPORT, the movement of German and Austrian Jewish children to England in advance of World War II. On November 15, 1938, a few days after *Kristallnacht, a delegation of British Jewish leaders appealed in person to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. Among other measures, they requested that the British government permit the temporary admission of children and teenagers, who would later re-emigrate. The Jewish community promised to put up guarantees for the refugee children. The next day, the British cabinet debated the issue. The home secretary, Sir Samuel Hoare, said that the country could not admit more refugees without provoking a backlash, but the foreign secretary, Lord Halifax, suggested that an act of generosity might have the benefit of prompting the United States to accept additional immigrants. The cabinet committee on refugees subsequently decided that the nation would accept unaccompanied children ranging from infants to teenagers under the age of 17. No limit to the number of refugees was ever publicly announced. The home secretary announced the program to the assembled members of Parliament at the House of Commons, who broadly welcomed the initiative that would come to be known as the Kindertransport. Within a very short time, the Movement for the Care of Children from Germany, later known as the Refugee Children’s Movement (RCM), sent representatives to Germany and Austria to establish the systems for choosing, organizing, and transporting the children. On November 25, British citizens heard an appeal for foster homes on the BBC Home Service radio program. Soon there were 500 offers. They did not insist that prospective homes for Jewish children should be Jewish homes. Nor did they probe too carefully into the motives and character of the families: it was sufficient for the houses to look clean and the families to seem respectable. ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kindĪ, abu ysuf yaʿqb ibn isḤ aq al-

In Germany, a network of organizers was established, and these volunteers worked around the clock to make priority lists of those most imperiled: teenagers who were in concentration camps or in danger of arrest, Polish children or teenagers threatened with deportation, children in Jewish orphanages, those whose parents were too impoverished to keep them, or those with parents in a concentration camp. The first Kindertransport from Berlin departed on December 1, 1938, the first from Vienna on December 10. For the first three months, the children came mainly from Germany, and then the emphasis shifted to Austria. In March 1939, after the German army entered Czechoslovakia, transports from Prague were hastily organized. Trains of Polish Jewish children were also arranged in February and August 1939. The last group of children from Germany departed on September 1, 1939, the day the German army invaded Poland and provoked Great Britain, France, and other countries to declare war. The last known transport of Kinder from the Netherlands left on May 14, 1940, the day the Dutch army surrendered to Germany. Tragically, hundreds of Kinder were caught in Belgium and the Netherlands during the German invasion, making them subject once more to the Nazi regime and its collaborators. Upon arrival at port in Great Britain, Kinder without prearranged foster families were sheltered at temporary holding centers located at summer holiday camps on the cold windy coast of East Anglia – Dovercourt near Harwich – and, for a short period, Pakefield near Lowestoft. Finding foster families was not always easy, and being chosen for a home was not necessarily the end of discomfort or distress. Some families took in teenage girls as a way of acquiring a maidservant. There was little sensitivity toward the cultural and religious needs of the children, and, for some, their heritage was all but erased. A few, mainly the youngest, were given new names, new identities, and even a new religion. In the end, many of the children for whom no home could be found were placed on farms or in hostels run by the RCM. From the moment of their arrival, the children struggled to maintain contact with their parents. At first, letters between parents and children flowed fairly easily, and many were filled with hopes and plans for reunion. The beginning of the war in 1939 meant the end of this dream. In addition, the German government restricted the delivery of mail to and from Jews, forcing parents and children to rely on intermediaries or the Red Cross. In 1942 many stopped receiving letters for reasons they could not understand until later. Older children suffered a different hardship when, in 1940, the British government ordered the internment of 16to 70-year-old refugees from enemy countries – so-called “enemy aliens.” Approximately 1,000 of the Kinder were held in makeshift internment camps, and around 400 were transported overseas to Canada and Australia. Those shipped to Australia on the HMT Dunera were mistreated during the long voyage, and a scandal that followed revelations about the mishandling of internment led to a program of releases

°KINDĪ, ABU YŪSUF YAʿQŪB IBN ISḤ AQ AL- (805–873), most notable “philosopher of the Arabs.” Al-Kindī is known to have written more than 270 works. His writings, many of them short treatises, deal with arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, astrology, pharmacology, meteorology, chemistry, medicine, optics, divination, music, and polemics. Through condensed writing, redundant passages, and repetitive arguments, Al-Kindī developed ideas and terminology from the philosophical works originally written in Greek and Syriac, and dressed the classical philosophic ideas in a popular style. For this purpose Al-Kindī oversaw the work of important early translators, such as Ustath, translator of Aristotle’s Metaphysics; Yaḥ ya b. al-Biṭrīq, translator of Aristotle’s De Caelo; and Ibn Naʿīma al-Ḥ imsī, who translated logical works of Aristotle and parts of the Enneads of Plotinus known as the Theology of Aristotle. He was also involved in the translation of Proclus’ Elements of Theology, named in Arabic Book on the Pure Good and called in Latin Liber de Causis. Al-Kindī’s works on philosophical topics are his treatise On First Philosophy (Fī al-Falsafa al-Ūlā) and the treatise On the Definitions of Things and Their Descriptions (Fī Ḥ udūd alA’shyā’ wa-Rusūmihā); his treatise on the unity of God, On the Oneness of God and the Limitation of the Body of the World (Fī Waḥ daniyat Allah wa-Tunahiy Jirm al-’Alām); and a scientific work, dealing with The Quantity of the Books of Aristotle and What Is Required for the Acquisition of Philosophy (Fi Kammiyat Kutub Aristutalis wa ma Yaḥ tāj ilahi fi Taḥ sīl al-Falsafa). Among his ethical writings the best known is the treatise On the Art of Averting Sorrows (Risālah fī al-hīlah li-Daf‘ al-Aḥ zān). Almost all of his works in Arabic, aside from translations into Hebrew and Latin, were lost until the mid-20t century, when 24 works of different size and varying importance were published in Cairo (1950, 1953) from an Istanbul manuscript. Al-Kindī was born in *Kufa and served the *Abbasid caliphs al-Maʾmūn and al-Muʿaṣ sim. He fell from favor in the

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

161

in late 1940. Men in particular were offered the chance to do war work or to enter the Alien Pioneer Corps. About 1,000 German and Austrian teenagers served in the British armed forces, including combat units. Several dozen joined elite formations such as the Special Forces where their language skills could be put to good use. Most of the Kinder survived the war, and some were reunited with parents who had either spent the war in hiding or endured the Nazi camps. Reunions were not always happy as children had grown and changed and their parents were also changed by what they had undergone. The majority of children, however, had to face the reality that home and family were lost forever. In all, the Kindertransport rescue operation brought approximately 10,000 children to the relative safety of Great Britain – a large-scale act of mercy unique in a tragic historical period marked by brutality and widespread indifference. [Deborah Oppenheimer, Scott Chamberlin, Gretchen Skidmore, and David Cesarani (2nd ed.)]

king, alan

time of the caliph al-Mutawakkil. His status under the patronage of the Muʿtazilah-oriented Abbasid caliphs has naturally connected Al-Kindī with Mu’tazilite ideology, but in spite of external similarities (such as perceiving the unity of God as involving no attributes, predicates, or characteristics), AlKindī avoids characteristic Muʿazilite themes (such as God’s unity and justice) and typical Muʿtazilite argumentation (such as the proofs for the creation of the world, and the supremacy of the revealed truth to all knowledge). Al-Kindī based his philosophical views on an incomplete acquaintance with the teachings of Plato and Aristotle and other popular late Greek and Hellenistic authors. He contributed greatly to the formation of the philosophical-theological body of knowledge, enthusiastically embraced by Arabic philosophers who came after him. Much of the philosophical and scientific information reached Al-Kindī through oral transmission of paraphrases and commentaries and through secondary sources, such as encyclopedias and doxographies. Al-Kindī was the first to use systematically the science of philosophy to support faith. He deserves to be called the “First Arabic Philosopher,” not only because of his ethnic origin but also because of his courageous and pioneering stand in favor of the superiority of philosophy to Arabic sciences and traditional Koranic studies. His distinction between logical, demonstrative information, and revealed, spontaneous knowledge is correlative to the distinction between objective nature and subjective self and between particulars and universals. His unawareness of systematical differences between Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism is especially remarkable in Al-Kindī’s perception of God as the True One in relation to the world and in his perception of the divine intellect as reflected in the human soul. While Aristotle bases the notion of the True One on its simplicity, uniqueness, and self-containment, in Neoplatonism these qualities are considered as deriving from the exaltedness of God. In his treatise on the soul, Al-Kindī also combines Platonic moral philosophy and the Platonic trichotomy of the soul with Aristotelian philosophy. He mentions the four platonic cardinal virtues but recommends observance of the Aristotelian golden mean. In his remarks on the intellect, Al-Kindī anticipates later mature theories of intellection, which explain the working of the human intellect as a minimized and imperfect imitation of the universal intellect. He alludes to the existence of a divine cosmic intellect, which is always in actuality in comparison to human intellect, which must overcome its state of potentiality in order to acquire knowledge. The status of the individual soul and its enduring life is still embryonic in Al-Kindī’s full concept of the human soul, but here too Al-Kindī prefers to talk about interior serenity in current life rather than discuss eschatological topics common to theological literature, such as the resurrection of the dead, the end of days, the final judgment, and the nature of reward in the hereafter. When describing the universe as composite and corruptible while arguing for its createdness, Al-Kindī follows John Philoponus’ proofs of creation based on the impossibility of

162

an infinite number, by using them as proofs for the finiteness of time and bodies. Influence on Jewish Philosophy Al-Kindī was one of the two main sources used by Isaac *Israeli (855–c. 955), the first Jewish Neoplatonist, in his philosophic writings. Whether Israeli read Al-Kindī’s works, or acquired his knowledge through personal contact with AlKindī’s disciples, is not known. *Saadiah Gaon (882–942), in his Book of Doctrines and Beliefs, makes extensive use of arguments posited by Al-Kindī in his On First Philosophy and other treatises in favor of the finiteness of the world. *Kalonymus b. Kalonymus translated three of Al-Kindī’s minor treatises on astronomy and meteorology into Hebrew. Al-Kindī was mostly known in Hebrew literature as an astrologer, and *Abraham Ibn Ezra quotes him in this connection. Bibliography: PRIMARY SOURCES: Al-Kindī, Rasa’il AlKindī al-Falsafiyya (Philosophical Treatises of al-Kindī), ed. M.A. Abu Ridah (1950–1953; 1999); Al-Kindī, Fi al-Falsafa al-Ūlā (On First Philosophy: Al-Kindī’s Metaphysics), ed. and trans. A.L. Ivry (1974). SECONDARY SOURCES: P. Adamson, “Al-Kindī and the Reception of Greek Philosophy,” in: P. Adamson and R.C. Taylor (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy (2005), 32–51; G.N. Atiyeh, AlKindī: The Philosopher of the Arabs (1966); G. Endress, “The Circle of al-Kindi: Early Arabic Translations from the Greek and the Rise of Islamic Philosophy,” in: G. Endress and R. Kruk (eds.), The Ancient Tradition in Christian and Islamic Hellenism: Studies in the Transmission of Greek Philosophy and Sciences (1997), 43–76; A. Ivry, “Al-Kindi as Philosopher: The Aristotelian and Neoplatonic Dimension,” in: S.M. Stern, G. Hourani, and V. Brown (eds.), Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition: Essays Presented to Richard Walzer (1972), 39–117; J. Jolivet, L’Intellect selon Kindi (1971); F. Klein-Franke, “Al-Kindi,” in: S.H. Nasr and O. Leaman (eds.), History of Islamic Philosophy (1996), 77–165; R. Rashed and J. Jolivet, Oeuvres Philosophiques & Scientifiques d’al-Kindi, 1–2 (1997–8): S.M. Stern, “Notes on Al-Kindī’s Treatise on Definitions,” in: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1–2 (1959), 32–43. INFLUENCE ON JEWISH PHILOSOPHY: A. Altmann and S.M. Stern, Isaac Israeli (1958); R. Walzer, Greek into Arabic (1963), 175–205; H.A. Davidson, Proofs for Eternity, Creation and the Existence of God in Medieval Islamic Jewish Philosophy (1987), 106–116. [Amira Eran (2nd ed.)]

KING, ALAN (Irwin Alan Kniberg; 1927–2004), comedian, actor, producer, author. Born in Brooklyn to poor Russian-immigrant parents, King parlayed a borscht-belt sense of humor into a varied show business career that spanned over half a century, including countless appearances on national television shows. His political activism on behalf of civil rights (he marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.), his campaigning for John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy, and his philanthropic contributions to Jewish causes in the United States and Israel (he founded the Alan King Diagnostic Medical Center in Jerusalem) made him one of the best-known figures in entertainment. An unabashed wisecracking New Yorker, King honed his skills in the Jewish hotels of the Catskill Mountains after being expelled from high school at the age of 17. He got his first ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

king, kingship

big break in 1949 when he headlined at New York’s Paramount Theater. Seven years later he opened for Judy Garland at the Palace, and he accompanied the actress-singer when she performed in London. From there his career took off, leading to comedy, television, movies, theater and film production and five best-selling books. He took on the persona of a swaggering crank – part impatient executive, part put-upon husband and father – complete with elegant haberdashery, a fine cigar, and a sour expression On stage, he mocked life in suburbia and criticized everything from airline food to marriage. He also appeared in almost 30 films (often as a rabbi, an agent, or a gangster), including Bonfire of the Vanities, Bye, Bye Braverman, and Enemies, a Love Story. As a Broadway producer, his credits included The Impossible Years, in which he also starred, The Lion in Winter, and Tyrone Guthrie’s revival of Dinner at Eight. In Israel, he also established a nonsectarian scholarship fund for American students at the Hebrew University and an Albert Einstein scholarship fund. He conducted fundraising efforts for the Nassau (L.I.) Center for Emotionally Disturbed Children and established a chair in dramatic arts at Brandeis University. He was a member of the board of the North Shore Medical Center. His books include his autobiography, Name Dropping: The Life and Lies of Alan King, Anyone Who Owns His Own Home Deserves It, Help! I’m a Prisoner in a Chinese Bakery, Is Salami and Eggs Better Than Sex?, and The Alan King Great Jewish Joke Book. In 1998, the National Foundation for Jewish Culture bestowed on King its first award for American Jewish humor. After that, the award carried King’s name. On the New York stage in 2002, he portrayed the film tycoon Samuel *Goldwyn as a man of chutzpah and brass very much like himself, the New York Times said. [Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

KING, CAROLE (Carole Klein; 1942– ), U.S. singer and songwriter. Born in Brooklyn, New York, King entered into a songwriting partnership with her husband Gerry Goffin (from whom she was divorced in 1968), and became part of one of the most successful songwriting teams of pop music of the early 1960s. They wrote such hit songs as “Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?” (1960) for the Shirelles, “He’s a Rebel” (1960) for the Chiffons, “The Locomotion” (1961) for Little Eva, “Go Away, Little Girl” (1962) for Steve Lawrence, “Up on the Roof ” (1962) for the Drifters, “Take Good Care of My Baby” (1963) for Bobby Vee, “I’m into Something Good” (1964) for Herman’s Hermits, “Natural Woman” (1965) for Aretha Franklin, and “Pleasant Valley Sunday” (1967) for the Monkees. She herself had a top-twenty hit during this period as well, “It Might As Well Rain until September” (1961), also co-written with Goffin. Soon after her divorce, King started a solo career as a recording artist. Her album Tapestry (1970) was one of the biggest-selling albums in pop music annals, with recorded worldENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

wide sales of 20,000,000. It won a Grammy as Album of the Year, while one of its tracks, “It’s Too Late,” was voted Record of the Year; and another, “You’ve Got a Friend,” was named Song of the Year; and she won the Grammy for Best Pop Vocal Performance – Female. King was the only woman to win all four awards. She went on to write and record such hit songs as “I Feel the Earth Move” (1971), “So Far Away” (1971), and “One Fine Day” (1980). King recorded more than 20 albums, as well as songs for such films as Head (1968), Pocket Money (1972), Murphy’s Romance (1985), and A League of Their Own (Grammy nomination for Best Song, “Now and Forever,” 1992). For television, she wrote the music for the TV special Really Rosie (1975); the theme for the series The Trials of Rosie O’Neill (1990–92); the title song for the TV movie Freedom Song (Emmy nomination for Outstanding Music and Lyrics, 2000); and she sang her song “Where You Lead,” the opening theme of the series Gilmore Girls (2000). On Broadway, three original musical revues have featured her songs: Rock ‘n Roll! The First 5,000 Years (1982); Andre De Shield’s Haarlem Nocturne (1984); and Uptown… It’s Hot! (1986). She also performed in the musical Blood Brothers (1993). In 1990, King (with Gerry Goffin) was elected to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. In 2001 she was one of three recipients of the New York chapter of the Recording Academy’s New York Heroes Award. And in 2004, King and Goffin were awarded the Grammy’s Trustees Award for their contributions to the music industry. Bibliography: J. Perone, Carole King: A Bio-bibliography (1999); M. Cohen and G. Shaw, Carole King: A Biography in Words and Pictures (1976); P. Taylor, Carole King (1976). [Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

KING, KINGSHIP (Heb. ‫ ַמלְ כוּת‬,‫) ֶמלֶ ְך‬. In the Bible The term “king” in the biblical frame of reference and that of the Ancient Near East generally designates a governor and ruler, usually the sole authority over his subjects. This term is used to designate the rulers of great empires such as Egypt, Assyria, and Persia; rulers of nation-kingdoms such as Moab, Edom, and Israel; and the rulers of city-states, such as Tyre, Hazor, and Jericho. Occasionally the term “king” is used to designate a tribal chief, or the chief of a group of tribes, e.g., “The kings of Midian” (Num. 31:8), and “the king of Kedar,” mentioned in an Aramaic inscription of the Persian era. Concept of Monarchy The status of the monarchy and the concept of monarchy are not identical in the various cultures of the Ancient Near East. The distinctions in the concept of monarchy are sometimes the differences between the ruler of a vast empire, and a city-state king who is in effect a vassal, and sometimes the differences among the cultures. The status of monarchy in Egypt is not the same as in Mesopotamia, and it differs again from its status in the Hittite and the Canaanite cultural spheres. Nevertheless,

163

king, kingship

the general notions of the nature of monarchy and of the figure of the king in the various cultures of the Ancient Near East have much in common. All shared the view that there was a direct relationship between the king and the deity – whether the king was actually considered divine or son of a god, or the god’s representative on earth who makes known the god’s will, or as the god’s chosen servant. The king’s power over his subjects – which was usually supreme and absolute – was not regarded as arbitrarily arrogated but as an embodiment of the god’s will and as a gracious gift of the god to humanity. In many of the Ancient Near Eastern cultures the monarch was seen as part of the eternal order. In Egypt the monarchy was regarded as an essential element in the order of creation. The monarchy was divine, as the natural order of things is divine. In Mesopotamia, in the view that finds expression in the Sumerian kings list, the monarchy was introduced from heaven, although the Sumerian kings themselves were generally not divine. There are few sources concerning the character of monarchy in Canaan and the immediate vicinity, but there too it appears to have been considered elemental. Origins of Kingship in Israel The kingdom of Israel, both in the features it shared with other Ancient Near Eastern cultures and in its unique features, was affected by the circumstances in which the monarchy was established. Unlike the situation in Mesopotamia and Egypt, we have no royal inscriptions or surviving royal annals from ancient Israel or Judah. Much of our information must be gleaned from the Bible. The Torah, which reached its final form in the post-exilic period, ignores the king almost entirely, referring to him in only two passages; the law of the king in Deuteronomy 17:14–20 and the mention of the king going into exile along with the people who set him on the throne in the curses section of Deuteronomy 28 (v. 36). The law of the king treats kingship as an initiative of the people motivated by the desire to act “like all the nations” (ke-kol ha-goyim; Deut. 17:14), a term with distinctly negative overtones (cf. I Sam. 8:5–6, 20). The law says nothing about the obligation of the people to obey the king in contrast to the laws about obeying the priests and judges immediately preceding (Deut. 17: 8–13), or the laws about obeying the prophet (Deut. 18:15, 19). Instead, the law emphasizes the king’s limitations. He is to be chosen by God, i.e., a priest or prophet, and he must not be a foreigner, e.g., the leader of a military coup, or an adventurer (Tigay, 167). He should not have too many horses or wives or silver and gold. He is commanded to write, or have written for him, a copy of the Torah, which he is to read all the days of his life so that he may be pious, god-fearing, and humble. Within the biblical narrative, the monarchy was not regarded as a fixed feature of creation but rather as a later development in the history of the nation. In Israelite tradition the earliest era of the people’s history, namely, the period of the desert wanderings, and the conquest of Canaan, was regarded as the period of a superior social order and of the Lord’s rule through his servants Moses and Joshua. The Book of Judges

vests authority in the non-dynastic leaders upon whom God calls to rescue his people in times of trouble. Indeed, the clan and tribal society persisted in Israel for a long time after the rise of the nation, in contrast to the biblical account that the kindred peoples Edom, Moab, and Ammon had established monarchies shortly after settling in their lands (Gen. 36:31ff.; Num. 21:26 et al.). The persistence of the tribal order in Israel was no doubt due to an opposition to the idea of a monarchy, which was part of the tribal tradition and had assumed a religious significance. (Among modern scholars, Mendenhall goes so far as to characterize the monarchy as a reversion “to the Old Bronze age paganism.”) In practical terms, the Israelite tribal system was not sufficiently strong to withstand the growing strength of the national kingdoms of Moab and Ammon, and the increasing pressure of these and of the cities of the Philistine league of city-states, with its feudal-military organization. And, indeed, in the beginning an Israelite monarchy originated as a conferral of hereditary authority upon a judge who had successfully delivered the people from their enemies. Such was the case of *Gideon (Judg. 8:22), and his son *Abimelech, and according to the tradition recounted in II Samuel, Saul was made king under similar conditions. In the biblical stories regarding the early attempts made in the age of Gideon and his son Abimelech to establish hereditary rule, and in the stories about the crowning of Saul, there is evidence that the establishment of a monarchy was regarded by some as a contradiction of the idea of the direct rule of the Lord over His people (Judg. 8:22–23; I Sam. 8:7 et al.). These references appear to represent an actual opposition to monarchy on the part of segments who were particularly attached to the traditions of the tribal society. Needless to say, within the tribal society those who advocated direct divine rule would have been those who claimed direct access to the divine ruler, among them judges, prophets, and priests at local or tribal shrines. This opposition has left some traces in the later Israelite attitude toward the monarchy (Machinist). Monarchy in Israel combined the tribal tradition with the influence of the general political environment. Israel adopted not merely the royal trappings, the institutions of authority, of its Canaanite environment, but also certain of the traits of the Canaanite monarchy which, in turn, reflected the influence of the great civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia. As can be seen from I Samuel 8, the Israelites acquired their conception of monarchy from their neighbors in Canaan. The rule of the king, as described in this text, closely resembles the forms of rule in Canaan, and Ugarit in Syria, in the period prior to the settlement. This close resemblance suggests that this description of monarchical rule was well established and was based on a reality with which the Israelites had been acquainted before the establishment of their own monarchy. Royal rule involved the sacrifice of certain personal freedoms, military service, and taxation. Nevertheless, Saul’s kingdom and, to some extent, subsequent royal rule in Israel, were based on the Covenant of the Kingship (see below), with the king in the position of national leader, and not upon the hereditary

164

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

king, kingship

CORONATION OF THE KING. The status and the trappings of monarchy and all that they entailed were clearly expressed in the coronation ceremonies which were customary in Israel. Detailed descriptions of two such ceremonies are given in the Bible. The descriptions of the coronations of King *Solomon (I Kings 1:33–48) and of *Joash (II Kings 11:10–20) were given because of the unusual circumstances surrounding them, but nevertheless they do provide a picture of the ceremony; it seems reasonable to assume that the description of the coronation of Joash reflects the established custom in Judah. The two principal features of the coronation were the anointing of the king with oil by a priest in the Temple, and his seating himself on the throne in the royal palace. The ceremony began in the Temple and was conducted with great pomp, with the royal guard standing around. During this ceremony the future king was given the insignia of the monarchy, i.e., the crown and the edut (II Kings 11:12). The crown was the symbol of the kingdom and is one of the commonest of royal symbols (II Sam. 1:10; Ps. 89:40; 132:18). The word edut is used in the Bible to denote covenant, law, and statute (see Ex. 31:18; II Kings 17:15; Ps. 19:8; 132:12 et al.).Some scholars translate edut as “testimony,” which they then posit was a document that listed the conditions of the royal covenant, and by which the king had to abide during his reign. According to Von Rad, the testimony was not a written covenant, but a species of divine authorization, in which were listed the titles of the king as God’s son and His anointed, his appointment to be ruler of his people, his royal name, etc. (see below); in effect, a kind of Egyptian nhb.t, namely, the document which listed all of Pharaoh’s names and titles. However, it is doubtful if there is much substance to Von Rad’s theory of a document of divine authorization of the king. It is possible though that in the course of the coronation the king was handed the covenant of the kingdom, or “the book of the manner of the kingdom” which was kept in the Temple (see I Sam. 10:25). Another possibility is that edut is related to ʿdh, “bedeck,” and refers to royal garb (Kimḥ i a.l.) or jewels associated with the royal office (Cogan and Tadmor, 128). After this the king was anointed with oil by a priest and/or a prophet and thereby became the reigning monarch, YHWH’s Anointed (Meshi’aḥ YHWH). The anointment, which represented the change in status as well as the sanctification and appointment to the post, was a sacral act, not confined to kings. The anointing of kings is mentioned in the descriptions of the coronations of Solomon and Joash, as well as David (II Sam. 5:1ff.) and Jehoahaz (II Kings 23:30). The sacral character of the anointment is seen in the stories

of the secret anointing of the future kings Saul (I Sam. 9:1ff.) and David (I Sam. 16:13). They were, according to these stories, secretly anointed by Samuel and were immediately inspired by the spirit of God. Something of that nature is also related in the story about Jehu (II Kings 9:1ff.). The anointment bestowed upon the king the status “YHWH’s anointed,” the ruler chosen by YHWH. At present there is only indirect evidence regarding this custom in coronation ceremonies in the Ancient Near East. A Hittite account of a mock coronation, which seems to be a close imitation of a real induction ceremony, lists the following features: anointment with the royal oil, bestowal of a royal name, and investment with the royal robes and crown. In Assyria the king would place anointing oil before the deity in the course of the ceremony. In Egypt anointment was an important part of the ritual, and it is known that vassal kings were anointed. It appears, therefore, that this was not specifically an Israelite custom, but was prevalent in the Ancient Near East. It is possible that the Israelites adopted this custom along with other ceremonies of king inductions from their neighbors. Indeed, *Jotham’s fable, which is apparently based on Canaanite custom, opens with the words: “The trees went forth on a time to anoint a king over them…” (Judg. 9:8). Once the king was anointed the people present shouted “Long live the king!” (I Sam. 10:24; II Sam. 15:10; I Kings 1:39; II Kings 9:13, 11:12). This acclamation was part of the ceremony and expressed the recognition of the new monarch and the acceptance of his rule (cf. II Sam. 16:16). In the description of the induction of Joash there is also a mention of a covenant between God, the king, and the people (II Kings 11:17); but there is no way of determining whether such a covenant was made every time a new king was crowned, or whether this was a renewal of the covenant because of the special circumstances of Joash’s induction. After the anointing of the king before God, he was led ceremoniously to the royal palace, followed by the people, and there he sat on the throne (I Kings 1:45–46; II Kings 11:19), which was the symbol of kingly authority. The words of Pharaoh to Joseph in Genesis express the import of this concept: “Only in the throne will I be greater than you” (Gen. 41:40). Phrases such as “as soon as he sat on his throne” (I Kings 16:11) mean, when he became king (cf. II Sam. 3:10; I Kings 2:4; Ps. 132:12 et al.). The Book of Psalms contains much more material about royalty than does the Torah. Many scholars accept Gunkel’s theory that Psalms 20, 101, and 110 are hymns which were traditionally sung at the investiture of the king, and some scholars have even attempted to learn something about the nature of the ceremony of induction from these texts. But in all probability these and other hymns, such as Psalms 18, 72, 89, and 132 were royal hymns which were sung at various ceremonies on various royal occasions. It is not possible to isolate with any degree of certainty those hymns which were sung at the induction, much less learn about the nature of that ceremony from cryptic references in the hymns. It is known that in Egypt there was a practice of giving a royal name to the new monarch, and by indirect evidence (see above) also in the Hittite

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

165

rights of an absolute monarch. In any event, the acceptance of monarchy entailed the transfer of much tribal authority, especially in regard to military decision making, into the hands of the king. Even in Saul’s day, there were already certain appurtenances of kingship, with an officialdom owing personal loyalty to the king, but it was only David and Solomon who adopted all the appurtenances of monarchy and established a ramified administrative apparatus.

king, kingship

kingdom. In Israel the changing of a monarch’s name on his accession is attested only toward the end of the kingdom of Judah (II Kings 23:34; 24:17), and there under special circumstances; but some writers believe it was the regular practice in Judah. Also, although it is not recorded that any other kings were given new names when they were crowned, there were kings who apparently had two names: Abijam (I Kings 15:1) was also known as Abijah (I Chron. 3:10); Jehoahaz (II Kings 23:30) was also called Shallum (Jer. 22:11), etc.; possibly this also accounts for the two names of Solomon-Jedidiah (II Sam. 12:24–25). But these few cases are not sufficient evidence that it was customary to change the king’s name upon his accession, certainly not as a matter of practice. SUCCESSION OF KINGS. The Israelite monarchy was, from its inception, hereditary in principle. In the Northern Kingdom there were frequent changes of dynasty, brought about by rebellion. In Judah, in contrast, the monarchy remained in the House of David, and although there were frequent regicides, when a monarch was killed his heir ascended the throne (see II Kings 11:4ff.; 12:21ff.; 14:5–6; 21:23ff.). Some scholars have theorized that there was, to begin with, an element of election in transferring authority from king to king, and that he was elected who was considered favored by God. Indeed, Saul was elected before God at Mizpah (I Sam. 10:17ff.). The elders of Israel accepted David’s reign in Hebron (II Sam. 5:1–3) and even Rehoboam went to Shechem in order to be crowned by all of Israel (I Kings 12:1ff.). A. Alt maintained that the principle of the divine choice of kings persisted in the Northern Kingdom and accounts for the frequent changes of dynasty; but this theory presents problems. The monarchy throughout the Ancient Near East was based on the hereditary principle: in Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, the Hittite kingdom, at Ugarit in Phoenicia, the Aramean kingdom in Syria, and even southern Arabia. All these kingdoms experienced revolts and changes in succession, but the general concept remained hereditary. It is therefore unlikely that the dynastic principle was not accepted in Israel, when the very concept of monarchical rule is that of hereditary rule. During Saul’s reign his son Jonathan was regarded as the heir to the throne (I Sam. 20:30–31). After Solomon’s death the people did not question Rehoboam’s right to reign, but wished to be rid of his tyranny. In the Kingdom of Israel, too, the monarchy passed from father to son, unless there was a revolt which brought about a change of dynasty. The confirmation of the king in his kingship was an act of religious significance and did not imply a renewed popular election. In Mesopotamia, Canaan, and the Aramean kingdoms the hereditary principle of the monarchy was highly regarded. (Compare Kulamūwa (Kilamuwa in earlier publications) inscription (COS II, 147–48); Bar- Rakib inscription (COS II, 160–61).) Nevertheless, a king could boast of having attained the throne by his own efforts – not by hereditary privilege, but by divine grace. This was especially the case if the king was a usurper, or of non-royal lineage. Thus Zakkur, king of Hamath and Lʿsh, boasted that

he was a poor man but the god Baalshamain loved him and made him king (Inscription of Zakkur (COS II, 155), lines 2–3). The situation in Israel was similar. On the one hand there was the principle of legitimacy, i.e., a monarch occupying his father’s throne (see I Kings 2:12; II Kings 10:3; Isa. 9:6; et al.), and on the other hand, the kingship was by God’s choice. This view also manifested itself in dynastic changes in the kingdom of Israel (I Kings 16:1ff.; II Kings 9:1ff.), and as a general principle of all monarchies, including non-Israelite ones (Hazael – II Kings 8:7ff.; Cyrus – Isa. 45:1ff.). The succession in Israel was generally from father to son, but sometimes special circumstances such as the death of a king who left no sons, or the intervention of a foreign ruler, a brother of the king (e.g., Jehoram son of Ahab; Jehoiakim) or his uncle (Zedekiah) succeeded him. The daughters of a king did not succeed him. Athaliah, the dowager queen who reigned in Judah after her son Ahaziah’s death, seized the throne by force. Normally the eldest son was expected to succeed, but the king had the right to choose his heir. Solomon was crowned by his father David in preference to his elder brothers, and Abijah was chosen by Rehoboam to succeed him, although he had older sons (II Chron. 11:18ff.). Similarly, one finds that in Assyria in the seventh century B.C.E. neither Esarhaddon nor Asurbanipal were eldest sons, but were both chosen by their fathers to be king. The passing of a king and the transfer of power to his son always entailed danger to the dynasty. In Egypt at certain periods the succession was assured by co-regency, namely, the heir to the throne shared the rule and the regal status with his father. The same method was regularly used in the kingdoms of Sheba and Maan in southern Arabia. In Assyria and the kingdom of the Chaldeans in Babylon, the continuity of the dynasty was assured by giving the heir a special status and his own palace – bît riduti. In the Hittite kingdom, too, the heir to the throne had a special status. This concern for the continuity of the succession was also expressed in a special clause which was introduced into international agreements, in which it was stated that members of the pact, or the vassal, were obliged to come to the aid of the heir in the event of revolt. Such clauses were incorporated into Hittite pacts with Egypt and with vassal states, and at a later period also in an Aramean pact and in Esarhaddon’s treaties with vassal kings. In Israel the heir to the throne seems to have held a special position among his brothers. Rehoboam made Abijah “the chief, to be ruler among his brethren, for he thought to make him king” (II Chron. 11:22). Jotham ruled in his father’s lifetime (II Kings 15:5); the regal trappings displayed by Absalom and Adonijah (II Sam. 15:1ff.; I Kings 1:5–6) were, no doubt, privileges of the heir to the throne, even though they behaved in this manner without David’s consent. Solomon was anointed in his father’s lifetime in order to ensure his succession. It can be assumed that the method of co-regency was also used by other kings of Judah, as becomes evident from a study of the figures for the lengths of the reigns; they cannot be made to tally unless it is assumed that the reigns of some

166

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

king, kingship

kings overlapped those of their predecessors, namely, that they ruled as co-regents (see *Chronology). BIBLICAL VIEWS OF KING AND KINGSHIP. As has been seen, the biblical concept of the monarchy was based upon the monarchical concept of the Ancient Near East, which was the cultural environment in which Israel developed from a tribal society into a kingdom. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the monarchy was established in Israel in historical times, kingship was not in itself regarded as a gift of God to humankind, and was not regarded as a permanent feature of human life (this is especially noticeable in the books of the early prophets and in the “King Law,” Deut. 17:14ff, above). Nevertheless, the monarchy was not entirely an earthly institution. The king was the Lord’s chosen and anointed and carried a certain sanctity in virtue of this status. The concept of divine choice was expressed even when the attitude toward monarchy was reserved, e.g., in Deuteronomy (17:15) and in the story of Saul’s ascension. The king, the Lord’s “prince over His inheritance” (I Sam. 10:1), was chosen to be prince over Israel (II Sam. 7:8); he is the shepherd (II Sam. 5:2; Ezek. 34:23; Micah 5:3; Ps. 78:71). The title “The Shepherd” or “The Faithful Shepherd” is one of the commonest titles of the sovereigns of Mesopotamia. The king is God’s anointed, and God’s spirit is upon him, and he is therefore sanctified, so that whoever harms him shall be punished (I Sam. 24:7; II Sam. 7:14; 19:20–25 et al.). This status of the king as the Lord’s anointed is evidenced also in the oath sworn “before the Lord, and before His anointed” (I Sam. 12:3). The idea that the king, the Lord’s Anointed, protects the people and that their fate is part of his fate, is expressed in Lamentations 4:20, which transfers the ancient Egyptian concept that the breath of the Pharaoh is life-giving (EA 147) as well as that of the Mesopotamian notion of the protective shadow of the king (Oppenheim) to the king of Judah: “The breath of our nostrils, the anointed of the Lord,… of whom we said: ‘Under his shadow we shall live among the nations…’” Whereas the anointing of kings was an accepted practice among the Ancient Near Eastern civilizations, there seems to be no other culture in which the term mashi’aḥ (“anointed,” “Messiah”) is used to describe the king, with all the implications of the term, except in Israel. One of the chief traits of the king in the biblical view is his capacity to judge justly. The list of David’s ministers opens with the words “… and David executed justice and righteousness unto all his people” (II Sam. 8:15). And Solomon asks God to “Give Thy servant… an understanding heart to judge Thy people…” (I Kings 3:9). The idea that the king was endowed with the ability to do justice is common to all Ancient Near Eastern cultures. In Mesopotamia the king was regarded as the judge who convicts the evildoers and protects the weak (see Code of Hammurapi, prologue, 1, lines 27ff.; 5, line 15ff.). In Canaan the good king is the just and honest one, who does justice unto the widows and the orphans (Kirta [Keret in earlier publications], Tablet 2, lines 39–54 (COS I, 342); and acts as father and mother to all (Kulamuwa lines 10–13 (COS II, 148)).

And indeed, in the story of the beginning of the monarchy in Israel, the people ask Samuel to “make us a king to judge us like all the nations” (I Sam. 8:5). This is clearly an essential element of the monarchical concept. The king is the supreme judge in the land, and the people come to him in search of justice (see II Sam. 15:2, etc.). At the same time, the Bible does not view the king as the source of the law, and law and justice are not regarded as royal edicts. The source of the law is the Law of the Lord, which was given to Moses. The “King Law” of Deuteronomy 17 does not entitle the king to pass new laws; on the contrary the kingship obligates the king to observe the laws and rules of the Lord. In Ancient Near Eastern kingdoms the kings were usually also priests of the deities. In Egypt the king was “the priest,” and all the priests served in the king’s name. In the Hittite kingdom the sovereign was the “high priest.” In Mesopotamia the kings referred to themselves as priests from the earliest days of the monarchy, and in theory were supposed to perform various priestly duties. A priestly dynasty ruled in Sidon. And, in a story set in the days of Abraham, the Bible mentions a king of Jerusalem in the era prior to the settlement who was “Priest of God the Most High” (Gen. 14:18). In Psalms 110:4 it says, “Thou art a priest for ever, after the manner of Melchizedek”; this early hymn probably refers to the tradition of the sovereign-priest of Jerusalem, the psalmist associating the kingdom of David in Jerusalem with the tradition of Melchizedek king of Shalem, priest of God the Most High. The king had certain sacral privileges in the Temple and in the ritual, and often played various priestly roles. David “offered burnt offerings” dressed in a linen ephod, which was a priestly garment, when the Ark was brought up to Jerusalem (II Sam. 6:14–18). David’s sons were priests (II Sam. 8:18). Solomon offered burnt offerings and burned incense before God when worship began in the Temple (I Kings 9:25 et al.). The king blessed the people both in the tent and in the Temple (David – II Sam. 6:18; Solomon – I Kings 8:55ff.), a function which, according to Numbers 6:23–27, is reserved for Aaron and his sons. There is no protest against this royal custom of offering sacrifices, burning incense, and blessing the people in the books of the prophets, which antedate the Aaronide priestly legislation of the Torah. The temples in Jerusalem and Beth-El (and apparently also the temple in Dan), in the Northern Kingdom, were considered to be royal temples. The Torah’s depiction of a priesthood that was well defined and completely apart from the monarchy is a product of the post-exilic period. The relationship between the king and the deity is expressed in various biblical texts as that of father and son. In Nathan’s vision concerning David and his dynasty, the prophet, speaking in the name of the Lord, says about each of the future kings of David’s line, “I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to me for a son” (II Sam. 7:14; and similarly in Psalms 89:27–28, and in other texts based on Nathan’s vision). This idea is expressed with great clarity in Psalms 2:7–8: “Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee,” etc. In line with this are Psalms 110:1, “The Lord saith unto my Lord, Sit thou at My

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

167

king, kingship

right hand,” and Psalms 45:7, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of equity is the scepter of thy kingdom.” It is on the basis of these texts that scholars of the myth and ritual school maintain that the religious concept in biblical Israel regarded the king as a son of God, as a divine figure; and some have gone so far as to state that the king participated in ritual acts which reflected his divine status. These scholars base their theory upon a “cultic pattern” of this type, which allegedly prevailed in the Ancient Near East, and of which biblical literature deliberately suppressed all evidence. But this assumption rests on false premises. In Egypt the monarch had divine status and in the Hittite kingdom the king became a god after his death. But in Mesopotamia the kings were not regarded as divine beings, and only at a certain period (particularly that of the Eridu dynasty and the Ur III dynasty) did they add divine epithets to their names, and this was an isolated phenomenon and was not constant, even in this period. In an Ugaritic text Kirta/Keret is indeed described as son of El, but he is nevertheless a mortal. There is nothing in Babylonian ritual or the Ugarit texts, upon which these scholars have attempted to base their cultic pattern of the divinity of the monarch, to substantiate this theory; all attempts to prove the divine status of the king and the existence of such ritual are based upon an improper interpretation of the texts. Accordingly, the concept of the divinity of kings is absent not only from the Bible, but from the Canaanite and the Mesopotamian cultural spheres. Even the few texts in which the king is called son of God, etc., do not prove the king’s supposed divinity, but rather the courtly style of hyperbolizing the sovereign’s glory, which the Israelite poet shared with his cultural environment. Thus, the poet’s words in Psalms 45:7 are no more than a concise simile to suggest “Your throne is like that of God” (compare I Chron. 29:23), meaning, a throne founded upon law and justice (see Ps. 89:15; and others). Even the poetic image of the king as God’s son does not imply more than God’s protection of the king, and the particular relationship between monarch and God. This poetic image can be found in Mesopotamia and in the Ugaritic texts, and here, too, the king is not viewed as a divinity, but as a mortal. It is possible that this term suggests that God adopts the king on the day of his anointing and crowning, as suggested by Gunkel, and that the phrase in Psalms 2:7 “Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee” was a formula for adoption. A detailed description of the king’s prerogatives over his subjects is given in Samuel’s speech concerning the “manner of the King” (I Sam. 8:11–17). These are based essentially upon the general practice of monarchy in Canaan, and were no doubt also accepted in Israel. In the story of the choosing of Saul for the kingship before God, it is stated that Samuel wrote “the manner of the kingdom” in a book and deposited it before the Lord (I Sam. 10:25). This “manner of the kingdom” is perhaps not equivalent to the “manner of the king” presented in I Samuel 8:11ff. Instead, Samuel’s “manner of the kingdom” may have embodied certain limitations concerning the king’s privileges,

and in particular, stressed the king’s duty to follow the Lord and obey His laws, as the Lord’s chosen and anointed and as prince of His people.

168

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

THE COVENANT OF MONARCHY. An important element in the concept of monarchy in Israel was the covenant of monarchy. One learns about the covenant between the king and the people, who accept the king’s authority, in the account of David being made king of Israel. A pact between the elders of Israel and David before the Lord preceded the anointing of David as king over all Israel (II Sam. 5:3). A more detailed description of the covenant of the kingship is found in the story of the proclamation of Joash as king of Judah. The covenant was made “between the Lord (on the one hand) and the king and the people (on the other); and also between the king and the people.” This covenant does not represent an election of the king, nor a limitation of his rule by the elders and captains of the people. It is essentially a religious covenant, and the limitation of the king’s authority consists of the king’s duty to observe the Law of the Lord (Deut. 17:19ff.; cf. I Kings 3:14, etc.). The king is not responsible to the people and does not have to account for his actions – he is responsible only to God. Only God can punish for breaking the covenant, by removing the king from his favor and by ending the dynasty, though not necessarily the rule of the king himself (I Sam. 13:13; I Kings 14:7ff., etc.). The concept of a covenant of kingship is clearly expressed in Psalms 132: “The Lord swore unto David in truth; He will not turn back from it: ‘Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne. If thy children keep My covenant and My testimony that I shall teach them, their children also forever shall sit upon thy throne’” (Ps. 132:11–12). This is an eternal covenant which is undoubtedly based on Nathan’s vision in II Samuel 7:8–9, which is in the nature of a promise that the kingship will remain in the House of David forever. And indeed the monarchy in Israel is essentially a dynastic one, and the divine choice lay in appointing the king and his descendants to sit on God’s throne in Israel (I Chron. 28:5; 29:23; II Chron. 9:8). The concept of a commitment to a dynasty is not exclusive to Judah and the House of David. Only circumstances caused the fall of the House of Saul and the change in succession (cf. the commitment to Jeroboam in I Kings 11:38: “… if thou wilt hearken unto all that I command thee… and do that which is right in Mine eyes, to keep My statutes and My commandments… that I will be with thee and will build a sure house…”). This principle was kept in practice in Judah, where the throne remained in the House of David until the end of the kingdom. Prophecies of the future declare that “in the last days” it will again be a descendant of David who will reign (Isa. 11:1ff.; Jer. 23:5; Ezek. 37:24, etc.). This stems from the association between the image of the future king and the concept and symbols which prevailed during the monarchy of the First Temple era, namely, the House of David. These prophecies describe the ideal future king as a shepherd whom God will send to lead Israel (Micah 5:3; Jer. 23:4; Ezek. 37:24;

king, kingship

cf. II Sam. 5:2). The future king or the ideal ruler, as seen in biblical writings, would be a king of justice, a suppressor of iniquity (Isa. 9:6; 11:3–5; Jer. 23:5); “His dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth” (Zech. 9:10). This simile is also a regular element in the description of the ideal king (Ps. 72:8ff. et al.), as well as the peace and abundance of the future kingdom (Isa. 9:5–6; Zech. 9:10; cf. I Kings 5:5; Ps. 72:2ff. et al.). [Jacob Liver / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]

In Rabbinic Literature Two problems faced the talmudic sages with regard to the institution of monarchy. The first was the apparent contradiction between the positive command to establish the monarchy (Deut. 17:14–20) and the opposition by Samuel to the demand of the people to appoint a king (I Sam. 8:4–22). The second was the legitimacy of the kings of the seceded Northern Kingdom of Israel. On the one hand the monarchy was regarded as belonging solely to the House of David and on the other many of the kings of the Northern Kingdom were appointed by a prophet (cf. the appointment of Jeroboam by Ahijah the Shilonite: I Kings 11:29–39). Since the restoration of Jewish monarchy – which in Jewish tradition will apply only to the Davidic dynasty – is regarded as belonging to the “messianic age,” the laws appertaining to the monarchy are not found in the majority of the codes, since they limit themselves to laws which had a practical application in their times. The only exception is Maimonides, whose code embraces the whole of Jewish law, and the pertinent laws are fully detailed there (see bibl.). The following details are substantially taken from it. It is a positive divine commandment to appoint a king; the opposition of Samuel was due to the fact that the people asked for it “in a querulous spirit” and their main purpose was to rid themselves of the authority of Samuel. The monarchy was to be hereditary in the House of David, and it was confined to males. Even where the possibility of a king of nonDavidic descent was envisaged (e.g., the Hasmonean kings) he had to be of pure Jewish descent. The greatest respect had to be shown to the king, and it was forbidden to marry his widow or divorced wife. He had the power of inflicting the death penalty, of confiscating the property of rebellious subjects which accrued to his estate, of imposing taxes, of conscripting for the army, and of imposing forced labor both on men and women, providing he paid them their wages. He had the power to declare a “religious war” (milḥ emet mitzvah), which Maimonides defines as “the war against the seven nations, that against Amalek, and a war to deliver Israel from the enemy atacking him” (Yad, Melakhim 5:1) without obtaining the previous sanction of the Sanhedrin. For an optional war, however (“to extend the borders of Israel and to enhance his glory and prestige,” ibid.), the decision of the Great Sanhedrin of 71 was necessary. The kings of non-Davidic descent were deemed legitimate monarchs provided they were appointed by a prophet, fought the battles of the land, and conducted themselves in ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

accordance with the precepts of the Torah. Whereas kings of Davidic descent were anointed (where their right to succession was in dispute) with olive oil, the others were *anointed with balsam oil, and there are various other distinctions. The extensive and almost standard parables based upon the difference between the mortal “king of flesh and blood” and the “Supreme King of Kings, the Holy One blessed be He,” with which the Talmud, and especially the Midrash are replete (cf. especially Ber. 28b where Johanan b. Zakkai appears to refer to the feelings which filled him when he appeared before Vespasian), as well as such injunctions as that “to pray for the welfare of the monarchy” (Avot 3:2) are in the main directed against Roman rule, and to this certainly belongs the phrase shi’bud malkhut (“subjection to monarchy”), the removal of which the amora Samuel declares as marking the advent of the messianic age (Sanh. 91b). The constant emphasis in the liturgy and in Jewish thought on the restoration of the Davidic dynasty (see *David in Liturgy) and the conception of God as king, which is central to that liturgy, has resulted in a strong monarchical tradition in Judaism, and in both talmudic and medieval literature the institution and legitimacy of the monarchy is generally accepted as a halakhic norm. However, there is also an ongoing uneasiness among medieval scholars concerning monarchy, which echoed Rav Nehorai’s saying that monarchy is a disgrace to Israel. This tendency can be found in *Saadiah Gaon, *Samuel ben Hophni, *Samuel ben Ali, *Rashi, *Baḥ ya ben Asher, Joseph ibn *Kaspi, and others. It culminated with Isaac *Abrabanel, who although, or because, he spent his life in royal service, came out strongly in favor of republicanism, both for the Jewish people and for other nations. Abrabanel was influenced here by his experience with some republican city-states of the Italian Renaissance. Mostly, however, he viewed human monarchy as a revolt against the kingdom of heaven. [Louis Isaac Rabinowitz / Avraham Melamed (2nd ed.)] Bibliography: Y. Kaufmann, Toledot, 2 (1947), 178ff., 214ff.; S. Talmon, in: Sefer Biram (1956), 45–56; J. Liver, Toledot Beit David (1959), 51–77, 95–116; S. Yeivin, Meḥ karim be-Toledot Yisrael ve-Arẓ o (1960), 196–207, 227–31, 250–5; M. Buber, Darko shel Mikra (1964), 164–269; idem, Königtum Gottes, 2 (1937), passim; C.J. Gadd, Ideas of Divine Rule in the Ancient East (1948); W. Beyerlin, in: ZAW, 73 (1961), 186–201; K.H. Bernhardt, in: VTS, 8 (1961); G. von Rad, in: Theologische Literaturzeitung, 72 (1947), 211–6; Alt, Kl Schr, 2 (1953), 1–65, 116–34; de Vaux, Anc Isr, 1 (1958), 91–132 (incl. bibl.). IN RABBINIC LITERATURE: L. Rabinowitz, in: Isaac Abravanel, Six Lectures (1937), 88f.; A.M. Hershman (tr.), Code of Maimonides, 14 (1949), 205–43; B.Z. Netanyahu, Don Isaac Abravanel (Eng., 1968), 178–80. Add. Bibliography: A.L. Oppenheim, in: JNES, 54 (1947), 7–11; H. Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (1948); G. Mendenhall, in: Interpretation, 29 (1975), 155–70; G. Gerbrandt, Kingship According to the Deuteronomistic History (1986); M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB; 1988); H.Cazelles, in: ABD, 5:863–66, incl. bibl.; D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle (1994); J. Tigay, JPS Torah Commentary (1996); J. Roberts, The Bible and the Ancient Near East (2002), 313–89; P. Machinist, in: Constituting the Community Studies …McBride (2005), 153–81. IN RABBINIC LITERATURE: J. Blidstein, “The Monarchic Imperative in Rabbinic Literature,” in: AJS Review, 7–8 (1982–83), 15–39.

169

king, larry

KING, LARRY (Lawrence Zeiger; 1933– ), U.S. radio and television talk-show host. Born in Brooklyn, New York, the son of Russian immigrants to the U.S., King began in radio as a disc jockey on WAHR-Radio in Miami, Florida. He moved on to host shows on a number of Miami radio stations and wrote newspaper columns for the Miami Herald, the Miami News, and the Miami Beach Sun-Reporter. But his career suffered a setback in 1971 when he faced grand larceny charges because of his alleged misappropriation of funds given into his keeping. The charges were dropped with the expiry of the statute of limitations, and from 1972 to 1975 King worked as a sportscaster and freelance writer. In 1975 King returned to WIOD-Radio, Miami. The Larry King Show was launched in 1978 on the Mutual Broadcasting System, Arlington, Virginia, and by the early 1980s the show was syndicated to some 250 radio stations in all 50 states. His television talk show, Larry King Live, on Cable News Network (CNN), started in 1985, became a leading talk show combining in-depth interviews with public figures and media personalities with viewers’ telephone calls. King thus became the first American talk show host to have a worldwide audience. The program reached more than 200 countries, with a potential audience of 150 million. Said to have interviewed more than 30,000 people during his career, King was listed in the 1989 Guinness Book of World Records as having logged more hours on national radio than any other talk show personality in history. Among his many honors and awards, King received the Peabody Award in 1982; the National Association of Broadcasters’ Radio award; and the Jack Anderson Investigative Reporting award in 1985. He was named Broadcaster of the Year by the International Radio and TV Society in 1989; was named the American Heart Association’s Man of the Year in 1992; and was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 1989 and the Broadcaster’s Hall of Fame in 1992. As a result of his bout with heart disease, King established the Larry King Cardiac Foundation, whose aim is to provide funding for life-saving cardiac procedures for individuals who cannot afford to pay for such treatment on their own. From 1982 to 2001 King had a regular column in the magazine USA Today. He also wrote Larry King (1982), Mr. King, You’re Having a Heart Attack (1989), Tell It to the King (with P. Occhiofrosso, 1989), Tell Me More (1990), How to Talk to Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere (1994), Daddy Day, Daughter Day (with C. King, 1997), Powerful Prayers (with Rabbi I. Katsof, 1998), Future Talk (with P. Piper, 1998), and Anything Goes (2000).

586 B.C.E. The last event mentioned is the alleviation of the lot of King *Jehoiachin on the accession of *Evil-Merodach to the throne in Babylon in 561 B.C.E. (See Table: Book of Kings- Contents.) Kings is the fourth part of the Former Prophets, its connection with the preceding book – that of Samuel – being indicated by the fact that I Kings 1–2 brings the life of David to a close. The Jewish classification of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings as “the Former Prophets” accurately indicates that the work, though using historical sources, is not secular or objective history but a theological interpretation of Israel’s past. Since M. Noth’s Ueberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (1943, 19572), it has been designated “the Deuteronomistic History.” For fuller details of the period see *History.

KINGS, BOOK OF, biblical book divided into two roughly equal parts, beginning with an account of the end of *David’s reign, Solomon’s succession and reign, and the disruption of the kingdom at his death, and continuing with the parallel histories of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel until the end of the latter in 723 B.C.E. and of the former in

First Part The account of Solomon’s accession (I Kings 1–2:46) bridges the reigns of David and Solomon. David had risen to the throne through talent and cunning. He was aided by the convenient deaths of Saul, Jonathan, Abner, and *Ish-Bosheth. Solomon was aided by the talent and cunning of his mother and the prophet *Nathan (Cogan). On his own he brought about, the demotion of *Abiathar (2:26–27), the elimination of Joab (2:28–35) and Shimei (2:36–46a), and the death of *Adonijah (2:13–25). The account of Solomon’s reign (3:1–11:43) is composed of miscellaneous matter from the public archives, royal annals, and possibly a Solomon saga. A source explicitly cited is “the Acts of Solomon” (11:41), but it is not known whether this refers to annals or a saga. The section begins (3:1–15) with the account of Solomon’s dream at *Gibeon, in which God offered him a gift, and his choice of wisdom (ḥ okhmah), probably meaning primarily practical administrative ability. This is to emphasize Solomon’s special endowment, to rule according to the tradition of charismatic authority in Israel, thus supplementing the tradition of the Davidic covenant in authenticating dynastic succession. The authentication of novel measures by a dream-oracle at a shrine is attested in Egypt (so S. Hermann, in: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Karl Marx Universitaet Leipzig, 3 (1953–54), 51–62). This may have been incorporated in a Solomon saga, particularly since wealth and political preeminence were associated with wisdom (3:13), in what may be a secondary development of the original tradition of 3:1–15, like the story of the judgment of Solomon between the two harlots (3:16–28). The popular character of this story is indicated by Gressmann’s citation of 22 versions of the same theme from various parts of the world. The account of Solomon’s reign in 4:1–10:29 amplifies the theme of the wisdom of the king. The nature of the subject matter and the sources drawn upon varies according to the interpretation of Solomon’s “wisdom” as administrative or academic, some sections interpreting it as the former, others as the latter. The greatness of Solomon’s administration is described

170

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

[Rohan Saxena / Ruth Beloff (2nd ed.)]

kings, book of

as a consequence of his administrative wisdom in the lists of ministers of state (4:1–6) and of fiscal officials and their districts (4:7–19) and the note on the provisions they supplied for the palace (5:7–8 [4:27–28]), which significantly follows 4:19 in the Septuagint. The fact that the aim of these passages is to illustrate the greatness of his administrative wisdom, suggests that 4:20–5:6, describing Solomon’s realm “beyond the river” (i.e., west of the *Euphrates), from Tiphsah, the ford of the Euphrates, to Gaza (5:4), together with the specification of the quantities of daily provisions for the palace (5:2–3 [4:22–23]) and the obviously exaggerated note of 40,000 horses (5:6 [4:26], cf. 12,000 in 10:26 and the much more realistic 4,000 in II Chron. 9:25) are less reliable accretions. The note of his agreement with *Hiram of Tyre (in 9:11–14, excluding the popular etymology of Cabul in verses 12–13), and the explanation of Solomon’s corvée (9:15a, 20–23) and the public works in the kingdom and in Jerusalem for which it was levied (9:15b–19) also belong to the account of Solomon’s administration. This material was probably derived from archives, but was freely composed in retrospect. The note on the occupation of the palace which Solomon had built for Pharaoh’s daughter and the building of the milloʾ (Millo; 9:24), possibly the terrace- and buttress-work on the steep east slope of Jerusalem (so K.M. Kenyon), and the statement concerning the naval enterprises from Ezion-Geber (9:26–28) also derive from state archives.

The incident of the Queen of *Sheba is part of the legend of Solomon’s academic wisdom and his magnificence (10:1b, 3–13). To this source, possibly a Solomon saga, may be assigned 5:9–14 [4:29–32], which states that Solomon’s wisdom surpassed that of all the men of the East and of Egypt, and was expressed in 3,000 proverbs and 1,005 songs (5:12 [4:32]) and a mass of encyclopedic lore or sayings concerning natural phenomena (5:13 [4:33]). This is not strange inasmuch as ancient Near Eastern kings prided themselves on their wisdom. *Hammurapi claims to have mastered all wisdom as does Ashurbanipal a millennium later. The theme that occupies the bulk of the account of Solomon’s reign is the building of the *Temple, which also marks a period in the Deuteronomistic history as a whole, signifying the culmination of God’s grace to Israel and of his confirmation of the Davidic dynasty, foreshadowed in the elaboration of *Nathan’s oracle on the Davidic covenant in II Samuel 7:4ff. Together with the account of the building of the Temple (I Kings 6) and its furnishings (7:13ff.) there are notes on the construction of the palace and public buildings that were connected with it (7:1–12). The marked contrast between the detail in which the Temple and its fittings are described and the vagueness regarding the palace complex suggests that the writer was more familiar with, or more interested in, the Temple, and was probably a priest. Noting that the focus of attention is on measurements (6:2, 3, 6a, 10a, 16a, 17a, 20a, 23b, 24–26), materials (6:7, 9b, 10b, 15, 16a, 20b, 21b, 23a, 31a, 32a, 33, 34a, 35b, 36), and technique (7:9b, 10b, 29a, 32b, 35b, 36), rather than on the more generally interesting and important details concerning the site, orientation, foundations, thickness of walls, method of roofing, and general appearance, and noting also that this material is largely arranged according to materials used, Noth (Koenige, Biblischer Kommentar, 1964– ) suggests that the account of the Temple in I Kings 6 was based on the oral tradition of instructions to the various craftsmen, which was eventually included in the annals of Solomon’s reign in the general form in which the Deuteronomistic historian has included it in I Kings 6 and 7. This suggestion would account for the obviously incomplete sourcematerial and the many technical terms that, it is conjectured, have been often misunderstood by the compiler and later glossators, and would account for the fact that the statement concerning the foundation and actual building of the Temple comes at the end (6:37–38), after which 6:1 has been adapted by the compiler as an introduction. The account of the furnishing of the Temple (7:13–50) shows a similar construction. The source which we have assumed for this material may have been incorporated in a priestly history of the Temple, which included notes, rather out of proportion to the context, concerning matters intimately touching the Temple, i.e., war indemnities from the Temple treasure by Rehoboam (14:26–28), Asa (15:18), Jehoash (II Kings 12:19 [18]), Amaziah (II Kings 14:14), and Hezekiah (II Kings 18:15) and the spoilation of the Temple by the Babylonians (II Kings 24:13; 25:13–17). The special notice given to Joash’s reform of Temple finance (II Kings

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

171

BOOK OF KINGS – CONTENTS I Kings 1:1–11:43 1:1–2:46 3:1–10:29 11:1–43 I Kings 12:1–II Kings 17:41 12:1–24 12.25–32 12:33–14:18 14:19–16:34 17:1–II Kings 10:31 10:32–17:41 II Kings 18:1–25:21 18:1–20:21 21:1–26 22:1–23:30 23:31–35 23:36–25:21 II Kings 25:22–30 25:22–26 25:27–30

The Monarchy under David and Solomon. The end of David’s reign and Solomon’s accession. The reign of Solomon. The troubles of Solomon’s reign and its end. The Divided Kingdom. The disruption of the Kingdom. Significant events of the reign of Jeroboam I of Israel. A prophetic tradition of the reign of Jeroboam. Synchronistic history of Israel and Judah. The reign of Ahab and the fall of the House of Omri. Synchronistic history of Israel and Judah. Judah alone. The reign of Hezekiah. The reigns of Manasseh and Amon. The reign and reformation of Josiah. The reign and removal of Jehoahaz. The end of the Kingdom of Judah. Appendixes. The Mizpah incident. The captive King Jehoiachin.

kings, book of

12:4–16) and the cultic innovations of *Ahaz (II Kings 16:10–18) may belong to such a Temple history. The obscurity of much information in the source and the interest in the Temple may have occasioned later accretions. The compiler has concentrated Solomon’s troubles in the end of his account of his reign, though actually the insubordination of Edom (I Kings 11:21) and Damascus (11:25) was earlier. This arrangement exemplifies his theme of the operation of the word of God in the history of Israel through blessing and curse (cf. Deuteronomy 28:1–14 and 15ff.). Thus Solomon’s marriages with alien women and his toleration of alien cults are noted with censure, and his political troubles, external and internal (11:14–40), are described as a consequence of this behavior. In this section verses 1–13 are the compiler’s resumé, while verses 14–40, the account of the escape and insurrection of Hadad of Edom (14–22; 25b, reading Edom for MT Aram after LXX and Pesh.) and of the rise of Rezon of Damascus (23–25a), are quite free from Deuteronomistic language and comment and were evidently based upon a reliable historical source which was not modified. There is apparently a conflation of two accounts of Hadad’s rising, one of which briefly records his refuge in Egypt and his eventual return with Egyptian support, and the other, his refuge with supporters in Midian (al-Ḥ ismā) in the early days of his exile. The latter might have been drawn from Edomite annals available to a Judean writer during the reign of Jehoshaphat (co-regent, 870–867 B.C.E., king, 867–846 B.C.e.), when Edom was subject to Judah (22:48). The account of the aborted revolt of Jeroboam (11:26–40), prefaced by a note on his origins, probably comes ultimately from the annals of Israel. However, the digression on the role of *Ahijah the prophet of Shiloh in support of Jeroboam (29–32) may be from a prophetic legend, like the story of Ahijah’s encounter with Jeroboam’s wife (14:1–18). Then follows the compiler’s expansion of Ahijah’s oracle, elaborating on the defection of the northern tribes as retribution for Solomon’s religious laxity (11:33–9). Since the permanence of the Davidic house is assumed in this section (36), it must be part of the compilation in its first stage before the collapse of the monarchy in 586 B.C.E. The section ends with the standard editorial obituary (41–43), with which the compiler punctuates his work. The decisive phase in the history of Israel signalized by the building and dedication of the Temple complex (8:1–21, 62–66) is marked, like all such crises in the Deuteronomic history, by a formal address, here the prayer of Solomon (8:22–61), which is both retrospective and anticipatory. The main lines along which the tradition of the dedication at the great autumn festival is described are doubtless reliable. This section possibly stems from a priestly history in somewhat free narrative. The prayer of Solomon, however, exhibits traces of the preExilic compiler in its phraseology, in the characteristic theological notions of the divine presence in “the Name” (e.g., 16, 18, 19, 20, 29), of God’s transcendence (e.g., 27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 39, 43, 45, 49), and the somewhat mechanical doctrine of sin and retribution (e.g., 34, 46, 47). In references to exile there

are probably also evidences of the hand which finished the work after 586 B.C.E. until the definitive redaction around 550 B.C.E.

172

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Second Part In the second part of Kings (I Kings 12:1–II Kings 17:41), the compiler is mainly concerned with the calamities of the Northern Kingdom as an illustration of the operation of the word of God in the curse which was a consequence of the tolerance of the ancient calf cult and various deviations from the sole worship of Yahweh. He consistently refers to this in his obituaries and particularly in his lengthy treatment of the reign of Ahab and his house (I Kings 16:29–II Kings 10:31). This matter is kept in historical perspective in the synchronistic history of Israel and Judah, especially in I Kings 14:19–16:34 and II Kings 10:32–17:41, with its notices of the accession and death of the various kings with synchronistic chronology. The compiler has drawn this matter selectively from the annalistic sources, the chronicles of the kings of Israel and Judah, to which he repeatedly refers for fuller information on secular history, a sure indication that the nature of his work is a theological interpretation of the history. The disruption of the kingdom is communicated in a selfcontained narrative concerning the rejection of Rehoboam at Shechem (I Kings 12:1, 3b–19 and possibly 20), with practically no editorial comment except verse 15, which connects the event with the prophecy of Ahijah (11:30ff.). The sequel, after an editorial accretion on the suspension of civil war between Rehoboam and the Northern tribes (21–24) and an annalistic note on Jeroboam’s fortifications (25), continues with a resume of his organization and staffing of the cult at Beth-El (26–32), followed by a prophetic denunciation of the Beth-El cult in 12:33–13:10. Significant differences in detail in 13:2–3a; 43 and 12:24 between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint are important for an understanding of the details of Jeroboam’s return from Egypt, where Septuagint may have preserved the genuine Israelite tradition. The account of the reign of Jeroboam in 12:33–14:18 rests on prophetic traditions of varying worth. The denunciation of the cult at Beth-El by a prophet from Judah (12:33–13:10), in which the reference to Josiah’s reformation in 13:2 is a later insertion, is part of an ancient prophetic legend, which forms a unity with the story of the death of that prophet because of his unintentional disobedience to his prophetic commission (11–32; so Fichtner, Klopfenstein, Noth). This passage has secondary elements both in the embellishment of prophetic legend by the miraculous (e.g., 4ff.) and in the editorial comment (e.g., 2, 32). The denunciation of Jeroboam and his house (14:1–18), occasioned by his wife’s enquiry of Ahijah about their sick son, is an important source for the history of Israel being part of the prophetic adaptation of generally historical narratives (e.g., 16:1–4; 20:1–43; 21:1–19; 22:1–38, II Kings 9:1–10:28) to express severe criticism of the monarchy in Israel. (It is likely that Ahijah as a Shilonite would have hoped, mistakenly, that in Jeroboam he had found a leader who would

kings, book of

restore Shiloh to its ancient cultic prominence.) In I Kings 20:1–43 and 22:1–38 it was probably this prophetic reworking of historical data which introduced Ahab as the king of Israel, the account of whose violent death in verse 37 is apparently contradicted by Ahab’s obituary in 22:40. The rule of the dynasty of Omri from Ahab’s succession in Jehu’s revolt (I Kings 17:1–II Kings 10:31) is treated at disproportionate length because of the prophetic traditions of *Elijah and *Elisha and their relevance to the criticism of the liberal religious policy of this dynasty, which probably reflected a contemporary crisis, on which the Deuteronomistic compiler animadverts at length in pursuance of his general theme, the operation of the word of God in the history of Israel. The material is of various character and historical worth. Certain passages, e.g., I Kings 18 (the ordeal on Carmel), 19 (Elijah at Horeb), 21 (Naboth’s vineyard), II Kings 8:7–15 (Elisha and the coup d’état of Hazael) and 9:1ff. (Elisha and the coup d’état of Jehu), show a sound sense of history and are generally reliable, their critical attitude to the monarchy indicating prophetic authority. The traditions of this type concerning Elijah may rest on the authority of Elisha at the beginning of the eighth century B.C.E., while those concerning Elisha and possibly II Kings 6:24–7:20 (Elisha in the siege of Samaria) and 13:14–19 (Elisha’s encouragement of the king on his deathbed) may rest on the authority of a responsible prophetic circle associated with Elisha, probably in Samaria. Of less historical value are traditions of Elijah and Elisha of a more personal nature that are not primarily related to historical crises, in which miracles abound, e.g., I Kings 17 (Elijah fed in famine), II Kings 1 (Elijah calls down fire upon the emissaries of Ahaziah), II Kings 2:19–22 (Elisha and the water of Jericho); 2:23–25 (Elisha and the rude boys of BethEl); 4:1–7 (Elisha and the widow’s oil); 4:8–37 (Elisha and the Shunammite’s son); 4:38–41 (death in the pot); 4:42–44 (Elisha and the multiplication of food); 6:1–7 (Elisha and the floating axe); 6:8–23 (Elisha and the blinding of the Syrians); and perhaps 5 (the healing of Naaman). This matter may owe its inclusion in the Deuteronomistic history to its popularity and its association with Elijah and Elisha; but the compiler, having decided to draw on it, may have used it to emphasize the control over nature exerted by the prophet of YHWH in opposition to the prophet of Baal, as in the ordeal on Carmel in I Kings 18 (so L. Bronnen, The Stories of Elijah and Elisha, 1968). In the sections devoted to the reign of Ahab and his successors there are rather full historical narratives, e.g., I Kings 20 (the Syrian attack on Samaria with a prophetic anecdote) and 22 (the death of the King of Israel at *Ramoth-Gilead), II Kings 3:4ff. (the Moabite campaign of Jehoram), II Kings 6:24–7:20 (the famine in Samaria and the defeat of Benhadad), II Kings 9:1–10:27 (*Jehu’s coup d’état) and II Kings 13:14–19 (the last meeting of Elisha and King Joash). In these sections the prophet is the central figure, except in the passages concerning the revolt of Jehu, although even this section is introduced by the anointing of Jehu by an emissary of Elisha as the agent of the doom that was proclaimed by Elijah on

the house of Ahab. The critical attitude of the prophet to the house of Omri and the phraseology of the oracle of doom on Ahab recalls the prophet Jehu’s oracle against Baasha (I Kings 16:1–4), and may belong to the same prophetic adaptation of historical narrative (so Noth, Könige). This source accorded so well with the theme of the Deuteronomic compiler that it needed little adaptation. In the synchronistic history the general annalistic style, which reflects archival sources, is varied by fuller historical narrative dealing with Athaliah’s usurpation of the throne and her suppression of the rise of Joash (II Kings 11) and Joash’s reform of Temple finance (II Kings 12:4–16). Certain discrepancies in the former in form and substance suggest a compilation of two sources, a priestly tradition (11:1–12, 18b–20) and a popular one (13–18a). The treatment reflects the compiler’s interest in the Temple and his sense of the political and religious crisis precipitated by Athaliah. The excursus on Ahaz’ innovations in the Temple (II Kings 16:10–18) reflects the same interest in the Temple on the part of the compiler. With the fall of Samaria in 723 B.C.E. (II Kings 17) the synchronistic history of Israel and Judah comes to an end. The account of the end of the Kingdom of Israel is based on both Israelite and Judean annals, with comment by the compiler in verses 18 and 21–23, and by the redactor in 7–17 and 19–20, emphasizing the principle of sin and retribution in the history of Israel, familiar in the Deuteronomistic history. There is also an addendum on the Assyrian resettlement of Beth-El (24–28) with expansion on the religion of the province of Samaria (29–33; 34–40 and 41).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

173

Third Part The third part of Kings, concerning Judah alone, is much more full and detailed, but still limited by the theological nature of the compilation. Thus, despite the significant role played by *Hezekiah in stimulating resistance to Assyria for most of the first 14 years of his reign, the compiler proceeds, after a statement concerning his religious reforms (II Kings 18:3–6), almost directly to the Assyrian campaign in his 14t year (18:13–19:37). Here, after a short statement on the beginning and end of the campaign (18:13–16), the narrative suddenly expands, describing embassies from *Sennacherib’s field headquarters to demand Hezekiah’s surrender (19:1–5, 14–19), the encouraging oracles of Isaiah (19:6–7, 20–34; verses 21–31 being secondary), and the fulfillment of the oracle in 19:6–7, in 19:35–37. This is followed by passages from prophetic tradition concerning Isaiah’s relations with Hezekiah during the period of his illness (20:1–11) and the Babylonian delegation (20:12–19). Here 18:13, 17–20:19 is closely, if not completely, parallel to Isaiah 36:39. II Kings 18:17–19:37 evidently consists of two parallel versions of the same incident, 18:17–19:9a, 36–37 and 19:9b–35. These, unlike the annalistic note in 18:13–16, cannot be categorized as history, but are rather popular anecdotal traditions centering on the prophet Isaiah and “the good king Hezekiah” and the theme of God’s vindication of his honor and inviolability of his seat on Zion. The prophetic story is

kings, book of

probably from the periphery of the tradition of Isaiah, though the actual oracles (19:20, 21–28, 29–31, 32–33, 34) may well be genuine. Assyrian documents concerning the siege of Babylon around 731 B.C.E. support the historicity of the account of the approach of the Assyrian delegation in 18:17–19:7, 36 (so B.S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis, 1967). The second version (19:9b–35), which summarizes the arguments of the Assyrian envoys in 18:17–19:36 from a theological standpoint and emphasizes Hezekiah’s piety in prayer (19:15–19) and Isaiah’s assurance that he has been heard, in support of which oracles are cited (21–28, 29–31, 32–33, 34), is an edifying tale concerning the good king Hezekiah. The episode closes with a midrash concerning the oracles (35) and a historical comment on the oracle dealing with Sennacherib’s withdrawal and violent death in his homeland (37). Hezekiah’s traditional piety is further dealt with by the compiler in the two oracles of Isaiah delivered during the period of the king’s sickness, 20:1–11, composed of verses 1–7, with the simple reassuring oracle (5–6), and the sign of the receding shadow (9–11), which may be a secondary development in prophetic tradition of some saying or token which was more rationally intelligible. The account of Hezekiah’s reign closes with Isaiah’s rebuking him for his too cordial welcome of the Babylonian delegates (20:12–19). This may be from an account based on a historical tradition. The incident owes its prominence and perhaps its position, probably out of its real chronological context, to the forthcoming Babylonian Exile. The reigns of Manasseh and Amon (21:1–26) are largely summarized in narrative style by the compiler and the redactor in anticipation of the decline and fall of Judah. The account of Josiah’s reign and reformation (22:1–23:30) comes within 25 years of what we believe to be the completion of the first stage of the compilation of the Deuteronomistic history, so that this may well be a free narrative from the compiler himself of matters in which he had been personally involved or which he might have heard from eyewitnesses. This section is composed of historical narrative from the compiler describing the finding of the lawbook, the covenant and the great Passover (22:3–23:3, 21–25), and the reforms of Josiah (23:4–20), which is based on the annals of Judah. Both have received redactional supplements in the response of the prophetess Huldah (22:16–20), in the elaboration of the incident of the desecration of Bethel (23:16–20), and in the note on the rejection of Jerusalem (23:16–27). From the death of Josiah until the revolt against Babylon in the reign of Jehoiakim (23:30–24:1) the compiler used the annals of Judah which he freely glossed, the whole being further glossed by the later redactor, who continued in the style and tenor of the pre-Exilic compiler until the fall of Jerusalem in 586 and the deportation under *Nebuchadnezzar (25:21), the work ending with two appendices in historical narrative. The appendix concerning the Mizpah incident and its sequel (25:22–26) is the summary of a fuller historical account in Jeremiah 40:7–41:18, and the one concerning the al-

leviation of the lot of the captive Jehoiachin (25:27–30) seems to betray the hand of the redactor in Babylon, since it reveals intimate knowledge of local conditions there, illustrated by fiscal dockets from the palace of Nebuchadnezzar concerning rations to Jehoiachin.

174

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Compilation and Redaction The extant Books of Kings must postdate the accession of EvilMerodach to the throne of Babylon in 561 B.C.E. (II Kings 25:27–30). Hoelscher (Gunkel-Eucharisterion, 1 (1923), 158ff.) proposed a date around 500, but it is unlikely that there would have been no mention of the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E. and the new prospect for the Jews under Cyrus the Great. Traces of a later hand after this date detected by Noth and Jepsen (Die Quellen des Koenigsbuches, 1953) are associated with the Priestly interest, as in the final compilation of the Pentateuch. It is to be questioned, however, if this amounted to a full-scale redaction of the Deuteronomistic history. At any rate, the Priestly element is certainly at a minimum in Kings. There remains the probability that the main redaction was made around 550 B.C.E. and it has been held (e.g., by M. Noth) that the whole compilation dates from then. There is a certain amount of evidence, however, for a pre-Exilic compilation before this definite Exilic redaction. This is indicated by the persistence throughout Kings of the promise of the permanence of the Davidic dynasty according to the divine covenant with David and by the fact that such references to the final disaster and Exile as do occur (e.g., I Kings 9:6–9; II Kings 17:19–20; 23:26–27) are obvious intrusions in the context. Among the views concerning the compilation and subsequent redaction of Kings, Jepsen (op. cit.) contends for a compilation written by a Priestly compiler about the end of the Kingdom of Judah based on the synchronistic chronicle of Israel and Judah to which were added excerpts from the annals of both kingdoms and an Exilic redaction, incorporating especially prophetic traditions together with traditions from Solomon’s reign and the Davidic succession story (I Kings 1–2). This according to Jepsen was the definitive Deuteronomistic redaction, the theology of which was normative for the whole work. Like Noth, Jepsen maintains that there were later adjustments, which he terms “the levitical redaction,” which we have seen reason to limit. Contending for the first stage of the main compilation before the Exile and a subsequent continuation of the work till a final redaction around 550, Fohrer (Introduction to the Old Testament (1968), 248) marks the break before the death of King Josiah in 609, since II Kings 23:30 is apparently contrary to the report of the prophecy of Huldah that Josiah will be gathered to his grave “in peace.” This, however, may refer to the state of the kingdom rather than to the personal circumstances of Josiah’s death. Evidence of a break in the compilation might be detected in the confused and scanty notice of the end of Jehoiakim’s reign in 598 (II Kings 23:36–37) and in the revolt against Babylon (24:1–7), and of the short reign of Jehoiachin in the Babylonian siege in 597 (24:8, 10–12; 24:15). The work could have been continued, per-

kinnarot, valley of

haps by different hands though in the same style, until a final redaction of the whole soon after 561, which inserted references to the Exile into the earlier compilation. Some scholars have argued for an initial redaction as early as Hezekiah. F. Cross and R. Nelson argue that under Josiah a first pre-exilic Deuteronomistic edition of Kings was produced, which then underwent an exilic/post-exilic redaction. The question has not yet been resolved. Aims and Purposes Appreciation of the purpose of Kings depends upon the recognition that it belongs to the Deuteronomistic history as an illustration of the operation of the word of God in the history of Israel, adumbrated in *Deuteronomy 28. After the collapse of the Northern Kingdom and the subsequent deportation, with a similar fate imminent in Judah and realized after 586, doubts of God’s purpose for Israel according to the Covenant assurances must have been current. Those are fairly rebutted in the Deuteronomistic history by recalling the consequences of Israel’s endorsement of the covenantal obligations under solemn adjuration (Deut. 27:15–26), which are amplified in the final harangue to the assembly of the Covenant community in Deuteronomy 28. For the author of the Deuteronomistic history, as for Deutero-Isaiah, the great disasters, which seemed to some to dissolve the Covenant-association, far from impugning the purpose of God, betokened the consistency and firmness of His purpose. Moreover, in the framework of Judges and in Solomon’s prayer at the dedication of the Temple the renewal of God’s grace to the contrite is emphasized, and from His consistency in grace as well as in judgment new hope is drawn. To construe the national disasters as consistent with the positive purpose of God as declared in the sacrament of the Covenant, to rally the people in contrition to fidelity to the fundamental religious and ethical demands of the Covenant, and to quicken a sober hope on the basis of the traditional experience of renewed grace was the purpose of the Deuteronomistic historian.

KINGSLEY (originally Kirschner), SIDNEY (1906–1995), U.S. playwright. His first success was Men in White (produced by the Group Theater in 1933), a play with a background of hospital life which won a Pulitzer Prize in 1934, and was made into a motion picture. A meticulous researcher, always careful to preserve authentic detail, Kingsley gained a reputation as a “tough” writer, specializing in dramas dealing with social tensions. Slum life in his native New York inspired the theme of Dead End, first staged in 1935 and also filmed. His other plays include Ten Million Ghosts (1936); The World We Make (1939); the farce Lunatics and Lovers (1955); and Night Life (1962), a play about racketeering. The Patriots (1942), a study of early American democracy based on the conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton, was written in collaboration with his wife, Madge Evans. Detective Story (1949) was a “documentary” set in a police station. His dramatization of Arthur *Koestler’s novel, Darkness at Noon (1951), won various awards. Bibliography: S.J. Kunitz and H. Haycraft, Twentieth Century Authors (1942), S.V. and first supplement (1955). [Samuel L. Sumberg]

KING’S LYNN (or Lynn), port on the east coast of Norfolk, England. It had a Jewish community in the 12t century. As the result of the massacre in February 1189, the whole community was exterminated. Jews later resettled there and in 1238 were ordered to maintain one of the royal crossbow-men. A diminutive community was established in 1747 which survived approximately a century. At the outset of the 21st century, it had no organized Jewish community. Bibliography: J. Jacobs, Jews of Angevin England (1893), 113–5, 348, 351; Roth, England, index; C. Roth, Rise of Provincial Jewry (1950), 77–81. [Cecil Roth]

[John Gray]

KINNAROT, VALLEY OF (Heb. ‫) ִ ּב ְק ַעת ִּכנֲ רוֹ ת‬, the level plain surrounding the Sea of Galilee (Lake *Kinneret) on all sides. The Valley of Kinnarot includes the Plain of Ginnosar northwest of the sea; the Buṭayḥ a Valley at the Jordan’s outlet into the sea in the north; the Jordan Valley south of the sea called the Negev (“south”) Kinnarot; and the narrow coastal strip surrounding the sea on its other sides. The valley forms part of the Jordan rift which is itself part of the great Syrian-African Rift. The unusual feature of the valley is that it encompasses the Sea of Galilee inside the rift. The valley was settled in very early prehistoric times; remains of early man have been discovered on the lands of ʿUbaydiyya near kibbutz Afikim. Much later prehistoric remains have been found in the caves in Naḥ al Ammud which is drained by the Gennesareth Plain and the Sea of Galilee, as well as along the eastern shore of the sea near Ein Gev, and on the banks of the Yarmuk near Sha’ar ha-Golan. The area reached a peak of prosperity in the early historical periods (Canaanite and Israelite) when large cities were established there: Bet Yeraḥ (in the early Canaanite period) in the south; Kinneret (Tell ʿUrayma) in the north in the late Canaanite and

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

175

Bibliography: R. Kittel, Die Buecher der Koenige (1900); C.F. Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings (1903); A. Sanda, Die Buecher der Koenige (1911–12); H. Gressmann, Koenige (1921); O. Eissfeldt, Koenige, ed. by E. Kautzsch (1922–234); I.W. Slotki, Kings I and II (Soncino Bible; 1950); J.A. Montgomery, Kings (ICC, 1951); D.N. Freedman and F.M.Cross, in: JNES, 12 (1953), 56–58; A. Malamat, in: VT, 5 (1955), 1ff.; A. Jepsen, Die Quellen des Koenigsbuches (19562); M. Noth, Ueberlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien (19572); idem, Koenige (1964); H.W. Wolff, in: ZAW, 63 (1961), 171–86; J. Mauchline, I and II Kings (1962; Peake’s Commentary on the Bible), 338–56; G. Fohrer, Elia (Ger., 19682); J. Gray, I and II Kings: a Commentary (19702); Kaufmann Y., Toledot, 2 (1960), 335–62. Add. Bibliography: F. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (1973); R. Nelson, The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History (1981); idem, First and Second Kings (1987); L. Rost, The Succession to the Throne of David (1982; translation of 1926 German original); M. Cogan and H. Tadmor, II Kings (AB; 1988); S. Holloway, in: ABD, 4:69–83; G. Keys, The Wages of Sin: The Reappraisal of the “Succession Narrative” (1996); C. Begg, in: DBI, 2:25–28; M. Cogan, I Kings (AB; 2000).

kinneret

Israelite periods, and others. The valley also flourished in the Hellenistic-Roman, Byzantine, and early Arab periods. Great new cities were built on the shore of the sea (Tiberias, Migdal Taricheae, etc.) and the old cities returned to their former prosperity (Bet Yeraḥ , etc.). The valley began to decline during the Crusader wars, when Tiberias and many other settlements were destroyed (the famous battle between Saladin and the combined Christian armies took place nearby at Hattin). It deteriorated further with the Mongolian invasion and reached its lowest point in the last centuries of the Middle Ages when it was overrun by Bedouin tribes from the Arabian peninsula. The revival of Jewish settlement in the valley in the early 20t century brought with it a new wave of prosperity. The valley, situated about 660 ft. (c. 200 m.) below sea level and surrounded by mountains, contains an abundance of water (Sea of Galilee, Jordan River, and Yarmuk River) and its unique climate is characterized by high temperatures and rapid rises in temperature as winter turns into summer. The area is intensively cultivated today. The combination of abundant water and hot climate makes it especially suitable for growing bananas and other crops which require the early ripening found in this area. [Yehoshoua Ben-Arieh]

KINNERET (Heb. ‫) ִּכ ֶ ּנ ֶרת‬, second oldest kibbutz in Israel, just S.E. of Lake Kinneret, affiliated to Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot veha-Kibbutzim. Its land (Dalayqā-Umm Jūnī) was among the first holdings acquired in the country by the *Jewish National Fund. In 1908, Arthur *Ruppin, director of the Zionist Organization’s Palestine Office, decided not to renew the temporary lease to Arab tenants, and set up a training farm there for Jewish laborers. Tensions arose as the farm administrator, M. Bermann, was inclined to regard the Jewish workers, who were Second Aliyah pioneers from Russia, as wage earners rather than trainees and preferred the cheaper, more experienced, and more pliable Arab laborers. After a strike broke out, Ruppin suggested allocating to a group of seven workers the Umm Jūnī lands east of the Jordan, where they then founded *Deganyah. A second strike, led by Berl *Katznelson, ended in a change of both the administrator and the workers. In May 1912, a girls’ agricultural-training farm was added to Kinneret, directed by Hannah Maisel-Shoḥ at. That month, Jewish pioneers from America, members of Ha-Ikkar ha-Ẓ a’ir, came to Kinneret under Eliezer *Joffe’s leadership. He worked out the idea of the *moshav form of settlement, and among the majority of the Kinneret laborers, the idea of the “large kevuẓ ah” (later called kibbutz) was developed (as opposed to the “small kevuẓ ah” on the Deganyah model). Outstanding leaders of the yishuv and labor movement, e.g., David *BenGurion, Shelomo *Lavi, Yiẓ ḥ ak *Tabenkin, Shemuel *Dayan, and Ben Zion *Yisreeli all worked at Kinneret prior to and during World War I. The kibbutz cemetery is known for the famous figures buried there: Berl *Katznelson, Naḥ man Sirkin, Moses *Hess, Ber *Borochov, Avraham *Harzfeld, and others. The grave of the young poet *Rachel is in Kinneret, where she

176

lived; a date palm grove, which first served to propagate the date species in Israel, was planted nearby and named “Gan Raḥ el.” Naomi *Shemer, who was born in the kibbutz, was buried there in 2004. After the war, Kinneret absorbed pioneer immigrants of the Third Aliyah, and also served as a camp for members of *Gedud ha-Avodah (labor legion) employed in the construction of the Ẓ emaḥ -Tiberias road. The Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad movement crystallized at Kinneret. The settlement developed exemplary, fully irrigated, mixed and highly intensive farming. It served as one of the spiritual centers of the *Ha-Po’el ha-Ẓ a’ir movement and *Mapai. With the split in Ha-Kibbutz ha-Me’uḥ ad, in 1951, Kinneret joined Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-haKibbutzim. In 1968, it had 700 inhabitants, dropping to 612 in 2002. The main economic branches are farming (field crops, orchards, citrus groves, and dairy cattle), tourism, industry, and a quarry. The *Bet Yeraḥ excavations and the seminary and convention buildings of Oholo lie within Kinneret’s boundaries. A mound near the northwest corner of the lake was identified as the site of biblical Kinneret (*Chinnereth). Bibliography: A. Ruppin, Three Decades of Palestine (1936), index; A. Bein, Return to the Soil (1952), 67, 79–90, 202, 248–51; S. Dayan, Al Gedot Yarden ve-Kinneret (1959), passim; J. Baratz, Deganyah Alef (1948), 7–12. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KINNERET (Heb. ‫) ִּכ ֶ ּנ ֶרת‬, moshavah in northern Israel, near the S.W. corner of Lake Kinneret, founded on Jewish Colonization Association (ICA) land in 1909 by settlers from Eastern Europe. The village developed at a slow pace, as the settlers frequently differed with the ICA (later *PICA) administration. The land was transferred to the settlers only in 1944. After that their progress accelerated somewhat. In 1959 the moshavah received municipal council status. In 1968 it numbered 195 inhabitants, rising to 335 in the mid-1990s and 497 in 2002. In addition to intensive farming (mainly orchards), Kinneret set up a small hotel, a restaurant, and other tourist enterprises. The first experiments in lake fishing were made by Jewish fishermen on the shore by the moshavah. In the nearby “Kinneret Courtyard,” where the kevuẓ ah *Kinneret was founded previously, several nuclei of kibbutz settlements had their temporary camp before establishing their own villages in the region, e.g., *Afikim, *Ein Gev, and Ma’agan. In the moshavah’s graveyard, shared with nearby Kibbutz Kinneret, lie the remains of Berl *Katznelson, Naḥ man Sirkin, Moses *Hess, Ber *Borochov, Avraham *Harzfeld, the poet *Rachel, and Naomi *Shemer. [Efraim Orni]

KINNERET, LAKE (Heb. ‫יָ ם ִּכנְ ֶרת‬, Yam Kinneret, or ‫יָ ם ִּכנְ רוֹ ת‬, Yam Kinnerot), freshwater lake in N.E. Israel. The Jordan enters it from the north and flows out from the south. Several names have been applied to the lake in the past, including “Sea of Chinneroth” or “Chinnereth” (Josh. 13:27; 12:3), “Water of ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kinneret, lake

Gennesar” (I Macc. 11:67), and “Lake of Gennesareth” (Jos., Wars, 3:506), while in the New Testament it is called “the Sea of Galilee” or simply “the Sea” (Matt. 4:18; 17:27; John 6:1; etc.), and sometimes “the sea of Gennesareth” or “the sea of Tiberias” (Luke 5:1; John 6:1; 21:1). In talmudic sources it is usually called yammah shel Teveryah (“sea of Tiberias,” Tosef. Suk. 3:9, etc.). The Arabs also called it Baḥ r al-Ṭ abariya. In Israel the biblical name Yam Kinneret has been revived.

History Owing to its abundant water supply, warm climate, the fertile land in its vicinity, and the numerous fish in the lake, Lake Kinneret has attracted man since prehistoric times; in fact, the most ancient human remains and artifacts found in Ereẓ Israel come from ʿUbaydiyya not far from its shores. In Neolithic times the inhabitants of the Yarmuk valley adjoining the lake engaged in agricultural activities (“hoe” agriculture). In the Early Bronze Age some of the largest cities in Canaan were founded there, in particular, *Bet Yeraḥ , a site of some 60 acres (250 dunams). The Via Maris (Maritime Route) which

passed its shores contributed to the wealth of the riparian cities. Egyptian documents (Papyrus Anastasi I) mention the hot springs on its shores and their beneficent effects. In the Bible, Kinneret serves as a prominent boundary mark: it was the border of Sihon king of the Amorites (Deut. 3:17); its western shores were in the possession of Naphtali, whose cities of Hammath, Rakkath, and *Chinnereth were situated along its banks; most of the eastern shore belonged to Manasseh, and the tribe of Gad extended up to its southern end (Josh. 12:3; 13:27). In the time of David, Geshur held part of its northeastern coastline, and after the division of the monarchy the kings of Israel had to engage in combat with Aram for control of its eastern shore; in this the Omrid dynasty was most successful. In 732 B.C.E. Tiglath-Pileser III captured the area from Israel and assigned the western shore to the Assyrian province of Megiddo and the eastern to Karnaim (II Kings 15:29). The lands west of the lake were a royal estate in the Persian and Hellenistic periods. The Ptolemies established one of their administrative centers (Philoteria) along its shore. Part of the territory of the city of Susitha (Hippus) bordered on its eastern shore. Under the Hasmoneans the entire area was Jewish. In 30 B.C.E. Herod received Hippus and in 20 B.C.E. the Gaulan. His sons Antipas and Philip founded the cities of *Tiberias and Julias (*Bethsaida) on the seashore. In the time of Herod Antipas the area around the sea was a main center of *Jesus’ activities. Under Roman rule the western shore (Tiberias) and part of the eastern (Gaulan) were Jewish while the rest was gentile. The entire lake was later included in the province of Palaestina Secunda; in Byzantine times many churches were built on its shores (e.g., Heptapegon, Capernaum, etc.). After the Arab conquest it remained in the same province which was renamed Jund al-Urdun (Jordan). The crusaders kept a firm hold on the western shore and fought repeatedly to gain control of the eastern (the Terre de Sueth). The Mamluks included the lake in the mamlaka (province) of Safed, and the Turks in the pashalik of Acre. Beginning from the first decade of the 20t century, Jewish settlements were founded on and near the lake’s west and south shore (*Migdal, *Kinneret, *Deganyah, etc.). The frontier drawn between the British Mandate over Palestine and the French Mandate over Syria included the entire lake in the former territory, together with a 1.1–2.2 mi. (1.8–3.5 km.) broad strip on the southern half of the east coast and a tiny 32.8 ft. (10 m.) broad strip along the Bethsaida Valley in the northeast. Under the Mandate, the settlement chain was strengthened in the west and south, and the kibbutz *Ein Gev set up in the east. It engaged, together with two other kibbutzim, in lake fishing and the development of pleasure-boat trips and tourism on the lake and in the area. After the 1948 War of Independence, the Israel-Syrian border remained unchanged, although the Ein Gev strip was declared a demilitarized area. More Jewish settlements (Ma’agan, *Ha-On, *Tel Kaẓ ir in the south and east, *Almagor in the north) were added in the statehood period. Lake Kinneret was chosen as the National Water Carrier’s principal reservoir, completed in 1964; the water

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

177

Physical Data The lake occupies a section of the central Jordan Rift Valley. It covers an area of 64 sq. mi. (165 sq. km.). The level of the water surface, which varies considerably with the shift from rainy to drought years, averages 696 ft. (213 m.) below Mediterranean sea level. The water is deepest, 144 ft. (44 m.) on the average, northeast of the lake’s center. The region of Lake Kinneret has a seismic character, borne out by hot mineral springs on its bottom and on its circumference. The lake was created in its present form when, in the recent geologic past, its bottom subsided more strongly than the area south of it, where diagonally posed young rock strata testify to an uplift which created a sill preventing the drainage of Jordan and other waters coming in from the north. Whereas the lake is thought to have originally been more or less rectangular, streams entering it, in addition to the Jordan itself, deposited alluvial material thus creating the Ginnesar Valley in the northwest and the Bethsaida (Buṭayḥ a) Valley in the northeast and rounding off the north shore. At the same time, erosion at the Jordan’s outflow in the south contributed to give the lake its present pear-like shape, with a north-south length of 15 mi. (23 km.) and a maximum east-west width of 10 mi. (16 km.). Alluvium deposited by the Yarmuk River in the south blocked the inflow of this watercourse into the lake and displaced the Jordan outflow to the southwest corner of the lake. Although the waters entering the lake are fresh, brackish springs at the lake bottom and near its shore raise its water salinity; strong evaporation in the region’s hot climate further increases the water’s salt content. Measurements taken in the 1950s and 1960s show oscillations in salinity ranging from 250 to 400 mm/liter chlorine content, again to be attributed to the varying amount of water entering the lake; the more water fills the lake, the better the saline bottom springs are plugged by its weight, causing a further reduction in salinity.

kinnim

was lifted from the lake by the huge Eshed Kinnarot pumping station in its northwest corner. As the main source of water in Israel, the Kinneret’s levels are of public interest. Its low level is 698 ft. (213 m.) below sea level, while its high level is 685 ft. (208.9 m.) below sea level. In dry years, when the low level is reached, pumping is stopped. In contrast, in rainy years, when the high level is reached the Deganyah dam is opened. After years of relative drought the abundant rains of 2003/2004 again brought the level to the high-water mark. Growing Syrian aggressiveness (attempts at setting up military positions on Israel territory near Ein Gev and in the Chorazin area, harassing of Israel fishermen, etc.) became one of the sources of friction building up the tension which led to the Six-Day War. The occupation of the dominating *Golan Heights by Israel in this war moved the border with Syria away from Lake Kinneret, which became an inland lake of Israel. The settlements around the Kinneret are mainly rural, while Tiberias serves as the urban center of the region. In 2003 the population of the Kinneret region was 96,000. Bibliography: Abel, Geog, 1 (1933), 163, 494–8; Picard, in: ZDPV, 55 (1932), 169ff.; Neumann, in: IEJ, 3 (1953), 246ff.; M. Schmorak, Atlas Yisrael (1961), V map 3; S. Yeivin and H. Hirschberg (eds.), Ereẓ Kinnerot (1950); EM, 4 (1962), 204–8. [Michael Avi-Yonah and Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KINNIM (Heb. ‫) ִק ִ ּנים‬, the 11t and last tractate in the *Mishnah order of Kodashim. The term means “nest” or “birds in a nest,” and it designates the pair of sacrificial “birds,” “two turtledoves” or “two young pigeons,” which were obligatory offerings in certain cases and voluntary in others (Lev. 1:14–16; 5:1–10; 12; see Shek. 6:5). In the case of “obligatory offerings” one of the two birds is a burnt offering and the other is a sin offering, while in the case of “voluntary offerings” both are burnt offerings. This distinction plays a significant role in the discussions of this tractate. Equally important is the distinction between ken meforeshet, meaning that the offerer has decided which of the two birds is to be the burnt offering and which the sin offering, and ken setumah, where no such decision has been taken and the designation is left to the priest. Kinnim is not concerned with the laws of bird sacrifices in general (dealt with in Zev. 6:4ff.) but with the special problem of “confusion of birds”; e.g., birds assigned as sin offerings mixed up with those assigned as burnt offerings. The problem arising in such a case is indicated in the opening paragraph of the first chapter. The blood of a sin offering is sprinkled on the lower part of the altar (under the “red line”), while that of a burnt offering on the upper part; if the actions were performed in the reverse fashion the sacrifice would be invalid. Subtle differences arise if the confused birds belong to one or to several persons, and the confusion of birds of the same sacrificial species belonging to one person also has some consequence. The second chapter elaborates on the distinction between ken meforeshet and ken setumah. It mentions incidentally that a turtledove and young pigeon do not constitute a ken, and concludes, somewhat out of context, with the quali-

178

fied ruling on the duty of an heir to supply the sin offering for a woman who died in childbirth. The third chapter enlarges on points already discussed in the two previous chapters and ends with the adage that the stupidity of an ignoramus, like the wisdom of a scholar, increases with age. English versions are to be found in the Mishnah translation of Danby (1933) and Blackman (1951). Bibliography: Ḥ . Albeck, Shishah Sidrei Mishnah, Kodashim (1959), 337–8. [Arnost Zvi Ehrman]

KINROSS, ALBERT (1870–1929), British journalist and author. Born in Russia, he became London correspondent of the Boston Evening Transcript (1896–98) and dramatic critic of the Morning Post (1901–03). In 1904 he returned to Russia as special correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War and the Russian Revolution of 1905. He served throughout World War I in the British army, started the Balkan News for British Salonica Force and for several months edited the Palestine News. He left journalism in 1907 to become a fulltime writer of short stories, which were published in leading magazines in Britain and America, returning to journalism during World War I. Add. Bibliography: D. Griffiths (ed.), Encyclopedia of the British Press, 1422–1992 (1992), 352.

KINSKY, GEORG LUDWIG (1882–1951), musicologist. Born in Marienwerder, Kinsky, who was entirely self-taught in musicology, became curator and director of the Heyer Museum of Musical History in Cologne (1909–26) and lecturer at the University of Cologne (1921–32), where he obtained his doctorate in 1925. After 1933 he was able for some time to pursue his research privately and to lecture in the *Kulturbund, but in 1942 he was deported and worked as a slave laborer until 1945. His last years were spent in near destitution in Berlin. In his fields of research – music bibliography and the study of musical instruments – Kinsky made several major contributions to modern musicology. He prepared a bibliographical index to Beethoven’s works, Das Werk Beethovens (completed by A. Halm and published 1955). His other publications include Geschichte der Musik in Bildern (1929, and several subsequent editions in German and English), an unfinished series of catalogs of the Heyer collection, and about 150 studies in periodicals. KIPEN, ALEKSANDR ABRAMOVICH (1870–1938), Russian writer. In 1894 he graduated from the National School of Agriculture in Montpellier, France. In the 1910s he taught agriculture in St. Petersburg and in 1920 became a professor at the Odessa Agricultural Institute. He wrote a number of scientific works on viticulture, mainly on vine growing in the southern areas of the Ukraine. Kipen’s literary activity began in 1903. He mainly published in collections and journals of Marxist and populist orientation but also in Russian-Jewish periodicals. He depicted the life of the working classes of ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kipnis, menahem

southern Russia, and was interested in events connected with the Revolution of 1905. He is familiar with the internal and external aspects of Jewish life. His documentary tale V octyabre (“In October [1905],” in the collection Znanie, no. 11, 1906) is an impassioned eye-witness account of an outbreak during a pogrom in Odessa, including the brutal murder of women and children who were flung from their balconies; Cossacks shooting unarmed civilians, Jewish self-defense, soldiers aiming machine-guns and cannons at Jewish homes, Zionists defending the honor of their people, and the moral vacuousness of Jewish apostates. The hero of the story “Liverant” (published in Evreyskiy mir in 1910) rejects the idea of converting to Christianity as an escape from frustration of Jewish lack of rights. In his story “Gangrena” (“Gangrene”) Kipen suggests that the solution to the Jewish problem should be the overthrow of autocracy and the elimination of all limitations of rights throughout the Russian empire. Kipen conveyed in a masterful way the nuance of southern Russian folk speech, including the hybrid Russian-Jewish way of speaking which to some degree characterized the language of the Odessa school of Russian literature. His brother GRIGORIY ABRAMOVICH KIPEN (1881–?), was an economist and active member of the Russian revolutionary movement. After February 1917 he was deputy chairman of the Moscow Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies and co-editor of the newspaper Izvestia of the Moscow Soviet. From late 1917 until 1920 he was secretary of the Moscow Menshevik organization. In the 1920s he taught at higher educational institutions in Moscow. From 1930 to 1933 he was kept in political isolation in the town of Verkhneuralsk. Subsequently he was sent to Tomsk where he presumably perished. [Mark Kipnis / The Shorter Jewish Encyclopaedia in Russian]

KIPNIS, ALEXANDER (1891–1978), bass-baritone. Born in Zhitomir, Kipnis began his career in Germany, and was a member of the Berlin State Opera until the Nazis came to power. He performed at Bayreuth and Salzburg, at Covent Garden and Glyndebourne in England, and at the Metropolitan Opera, New York. A singer of great range and flexibility, he excelled in lieder as well as in opera and oratorio. His son Igor (1930– ) was a well-known harpsichord player. KIPNIS, ITZIK (1896–1974), Yiddish novelist. Born in Volhynia into a maskilic family, Kipnis worked as a tanner before being sent by his union to Kiev to study (1920). There he befriended David *Hofstein, associated with the Kiev Group, and debuted in the Kiev children’s monthly Freyd (1922), becoming one of the finest Yiddish children’s writers. He published a book of poetry, Oksn (“Oxen,” 1923), but soon found prose to be his medium. His narrative Khadoshim un Teg (“Months and Days,” 1926), depicting the pogroms of 1919–21 and idealizing his native shtetl, won acclaim from readers and critics. S. *Niger and David *Bergelson hailed him as a successor to *Sholem Aleichem, but Soviet critics, while recognizing his great narrative talent, attacked him for the apolitical and petit ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

bourgeois character of his lyricism and idyllic melancholy. He was expelled several times from the Soviet Writers’ Union for resisting Party pressure. Evacuated from Kiev during World War II, he returned in 1944 and penned his moving sketch Babi-Yar, commemorating the German massacre of Kiev’s Jews (1941) and calling for Jewish revival. In 1948, he was arrested as a Jewish nationalist and imprisoned in a remote labor camp. His rehabilitation following Stalin’s death did not permit residence in a large city, so he lived in Boyarka, famed as Sholem Aleichem’s Boiberik. In 1958 he returned to Kiev and published in the sole (revived) Soviet Yiddish literary periodical, Sovetish Heymland; a volume of his stories, Tsum Lebn (“To Life”) was published in Moscow in 1969. In his works, published in Israel in the 1970s, he instructed the editors to restore his texts crippled by Soviet censorship. Bibliography: Meisel, in: I. Kipnis, Untervegns (1960), 7–23, (introd.); S. Bickel, Shrayber fun Mayn Dor, 2 (1965), 341–7; E. Rosenthal, in: Goldene Keyt, 61 (1967), 123–68. Add. Bibliography: LNYL, 8 (1981), 191–5; B. Kagan, Leksikon fun Yidish Shraybers (1986), 483–7. [Sol Liptzin / Eugene V. Orenstein (2nd ed.)]

KIPNIS, LEVIN (1894–1990), author of children’s Hebrew literature. Born in Ushomir, Volhynia, he went to Ereẓ Israel in 1913, studied at the Bezalel School of Arts, and taught in a kindergarten. After a period of study in Germany in 1923 he joined the staff of the Lewinsky Teachers’ Seminary in Tel Aviv. One of the first children’s authors in Ereẓ Israel, his numerous storybooks included Pa’am Aḥ at (1931), Yeladim baMaḥ teret (1946), Ḥ aggai (1949), Alef (1955), Bet (1956), Gimmel (1957), Ẓ ivonim (1967), and Ḥ idon ha-Torah li-Yladim (1968). Later he also wrote children’s stories in Yiddish and published, in 1961, Untern Taytelboym. He also edited the journals for kindergarten teachers, Gannenu (1919–20) and Hed ha-Gan (1938–59). In 1978 he was the recipient of the Israel Prize for children’s literature. A collection of essays examining the influence of Kipnis on Hebrew children’s literature was published under Iyyunim bi-Yẓ irat Levin Kipnis in 1982. A list of his works translated into English appears in Goell, Bibliography, 105 (index). Bibliography: Tidhar, 5 (1952), 2103–05, incl. bibl.; Ẓ . Scharfstein, Yoẓ erei Sifrut ha-Yeladim Shellanu (1947), 111–6; Kressel, Leksikon, 2 (1967), 754–5. Add. Bibliography: H. Nesher, “Al L. Kipnis,” in: Sifrut Yeladim va-Noar 7:2–3 (1981), 44–48; S. Mashiah, “Mishirei Misḥ ak le-Dramah: Levin Kipnis,” in: Bamah, 116 (1989), 43–50; G. Almog, “Sheloshah Parparim ve-Gezer,” in: Olam Katan, 1 (2000), 243–51. [Getzel Kressel]

KIPNIS, MENAHEM (1878–1942), singer, folklore collector, and writer. Born in Ushomir, Ukraine, Kipnis came from a family of ḥ asidic rabbis and ḥ azzanim. As a boy he sang in the choirs of Nissan *Spivak (“Nissi Belzer”) and Jacob Samuel *Morogowsky (“Zeidel Rovner”). In 1901 he went to Warsaw where he completed his musical education, sang in the chorus of the opera, and began to publish articles on various

179

kipper

aspects of Jewish music in the major Hebrew and Yiddish newspapers. From 1912 to 1932 he toured Poland, Germany, and France, appearing in concert with his wife and former pupil, Zimra Seligsfeld, in combined lecture-performances of the Jewish folk songs which he had collected and studied. These he published successively in 1918 (60 Folkslider), 1923 (80 Folkslider), and a combined edition in 1931 (140 Folkslider), with a parallel edition of 25 tunes with piano accompaniment which appeared between 1924 and 1926. He also published three collections of songs for children, and was active in the Polish cantors organization. Bibliography: Sendrey, indices; Rejzen, Leksikon; P. Szerman, in: Di Khazzonim Velt (Jan. 1934), 2–4; J. Mastbaum, Warsaw 1939 (Heb., 1944), 174–5; M. Ravitch, Mayn Leksikon, 1 (1945), 230, 232; H. Zeidman, Yoman Getto Varshah (1957). [Haim Bar-Dayan]

KIPPER (Heb. ‫) ִּכ ּ ֵפר‬. Etymology The customary rendering of kipper is “to atone for,” or “expiate” but in most cases this is, at best, imprecise. In poetry its parallel synonym is maḥ ah (“to wipe away”; Jer. 18:23), or hesir (“to remove”; Isa. 27:9, cf. the passive, ibid. 6:7), suggesting that kipper means “to purge.” Also, ritual texts regularly couple kipper with ṭ iher (“to purify”), and ḥ iṭ ṭ eʾ (“to decontaminate”; Lev. 14:48, 52, 53). However, other poetic passages use in parallel kissah (“to cover”; Neh.3:37; cf. Jer. 18:23), as if kipper connotes smearing on a new substance rather than effacing an existent one. Linguists have been divided as to which is the basic meaning since evidence from Semitic cognates can be cited in support of both, mainly from the Arabic for “to cover” and from the Akkadian for “to wipe.” But perhaps both these meanings go back to an original common notion of rubbing. Since a substance may either be “rubbed on” or “rubbed off,” the derived meanings “to wipe” and “to cover” may be complementary rather than contradictory. This is especially clear in Akkadian where both usages are attested in medical/ritual texts and where “the step between ‘rubbing off ’ and ‘rubbing on’ is so short that one cannot distinguish between cleaning and treatment” (B. Landsberger). Akkadian kuppuru includes within its semantic range the purification of temples and other ritual cleansing (CAD K, 179). Ritual Kipper as “Cover” It must be admitted, however, that while there can be no doubt that blood is “rubbed onto” the evidence of the house as an apotropaic in the Pesaḥ ritual (cf. the verb pasaḥ , “protect,” in Exodus 12:23 (I will pasaḥ over the entrance and will not let the destroyer into your house), 27; Isa. 31:5), the evidence that kipper can have this connotation is confined to Numbers 17:11, where it is not decisive.

the blood of the ḥ aṭ ṭ aʾt, the purification offering (see *Sacrifice). Its use is restricted to the sanctuary: it is never used on a person. The rites for the healed leper and for the consecration of the priest call for a ḥ aṭ ṭ aʾt, but the blood daubed on them does not come from the ḥ aṭ ṭ aʾt but from other animal sacrifices. Moreover, a study of the syntax of the kipper prepositions is decisive. It reveals that: (1) A non-human object of kipper is either direct or indirect through one preposition, ʿal or be, the direct object being that which is purged and the prepositional object that “on” which or “in” which purgation takes place and (2) a human object is never governed by kipper directly but only through either ʿal or beʿad, both signifying “in behalf of.” This means that a human is not only the object but the beneficiary of the rite which is performed for him by a priest. There is an object, but it is the object that is sprinkled or smeared with the ḥ aṭ ṭ aʾt blood, and this is done not to the human beneficiary, but to the sanctuary and its sancta. By placing the blood upon the altar horns or bringing it inside the sanctuary (e.g., Lev. 16:14–19) the priest thereby purges the most sacred areas in behalf of the person(s) who caused their contamination either by physical impurity (Lev. 12–15) or by inadvertent misdemeanor against God (Lev. 4). Deliberate sins and impurities, however, cannot be purged by the offender’s own ḥ aṭ ṭ aʾt (Num. 15:30–31) but must await the annual rite of purgation for the sanctuary and the nation (*Day of Atonement). Kipper undergoes further qualification in the context of the sacrificial system. The Theology The net result of these deductions from the function of sacrificial kipper is that there is sufficient evidence to reconstruct the missing priestly doctrine of theodicy. It presumes that sin is a miasma which wherever committed is attracted to the sanctuary. There it adheres and accumulates until God will no longer abide in it. Hence, it is forever incumbent upon Israel, through the indispensable medium of its priesthood, to purge the sanctuary regularly of its impurities lest God abandon it and the people to their doom. Thus, evil is never unheeded by God, even when the individual evildoer is not immediately punished, but accumulates in the sanctuary until the point of no return: the sum of individual sin leads inexorably to the destruction of the community. This priestly theology of kipper is easily traceable to older non-Israelite analogues, for the ancient Near East shared a common obsession with temple purification. Impurity is inherently dangerous to divinities and humans. The kipper rite effectively removes that danger.

Ritual Kipper as “Purge” In Israel, however, it is important to note that the meaning “to rub off ” predominates in the ritual texts, whereas that of “to cover” probably never occurs. This is best illustrated by

Remaining Kipper Cases The agents of ritual kipper, exclusive of the ḥ aṭ ṭ aʾt blood, which have not yet been discussed are: the scapegoat (Lev. 16:10, 21–22); the broken-necked heifer (Deut. 21:1–9); the money for the military census (Ex. 30:16); the levites (Num. 8:19); the human deaths by plague for people’s idolatry (Num. 25:1–15); the priest whose death frees the homicide from exile (Num. 35:32–33); and finally, the blood of sacrifices other

180

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kipper

than ḥ aṭ ṭ aʾt. Their elucidation will establish a new meaning for kipper. Kipper as “To Represent” or “To Transfer” It has been noticed in Mesopotamian magic that “the dirt called kupirtu or takpirtu is absorbed by a medium, mostly dough which is thrown away, buried or carried away” (B. Landsberger). This leads to the phenomenon of “the representative,” “carrier,” or “transfer agent,” the substance to which the evil is transferred and thereupon eliminated. This notion of kipper-carrier is clearly represented in the Bible by the rituals of the scapegoat (*Azazel) and the heifer whose neck is broken, as shown by extra-biblical parallels (see *Day of Atonement). Though such evidence is not available for the remaining cases, the representative principle is nonetheless operative. The common denominator of all these cases is their avowed goal: to avert the wrath of God from the entire community (cf. respectively: Ex. 30:16; Num. 8:19; Num. 25:13; II Sam. 21:1,3). This kipper must be sharply distinguished from that of the sanctuary. In the latter case, the impurities are purged lest they cause the indwelling God to leave; in this instance, however, kipper has the immediate goal of preventing the divine anger from incinerating innocent and guilty alike. Furthermore, in the case of the census money, lekhapper ʿal nafshoteikhem is related to kofer nafsho (Ex. 30:12, 15–16); the same combination is again found in the homicide law (Num. 35:31–33). The verb kipper is thus tied by the context to its kal (qal) noun kofer whose meaning is undisputed (i.e., “ransom”; Ex. 21:30). Therefore, there exists a strong possibility that all texts which assign to kipper the function of averting God’s wrath have kofer in mind: innocent lives spared by their substitution by the guilty parties or their representative (already noted by Ibn Ezra for the levites of Num. 18:9). Thus, the above-mentioned cases are elucidated as follows: though no substitute is allowed for a deliberate murder, the accidental homicide is ransomed by the natural death of the high priest; similarly, the census money ransoms each counted soldier; and the levite guards supplant the Israelites when one of the latter encroaches upon the sancta (Num. 1:53; 8:19; 18:22–23).

Kipper Blood One more ritual kipper remains: the crux of Leviticus 17:11. This verse states explicitly that the function of the altar blood is “to expiate for your lives,” and it has been construed as a generalization defining the purpose of all sacrificial blood. But shelamim have nothing to do with sin and neither have votive and thanksgiving offerings (Lev. 22:17ff.; Ps. 116:17–18). The key to the nature of the “expiation” of Leviticus 17:11 is the context. Leviticus chapter 17 concentrates on the prohibition of ingesting blood, and therefore deals nearly exclusively with the shelamim. For the shelamim (of which the thanksgiving offering is a special variety) is the one sacrifice whose flesh is permitted to the laic and the consuming of flesh itself requires expiation. That is why Leviticus 17:4 makes the killing of sacrificeable animals except at the sanctuary tantamount to murder. The sanctuary altar, in the priestly code, legitimates animal slaughter by being the divinely appointed instrument which restores the life of the animal, symbolized by the blood, to God. Thus Leviticus 17:11 is to be translated: “And I have assigned it [the shelamim blood] to you upon the altar, to expiate for your lives; for it is the blood, as life, that can expiate.” Of course Leviticus 17:3ff. is not unique in forbidding the consumption of blood (cf. Gen. 9:3–4; Lev. 3:17; 7:20–21 – all P), whereby animal flesh is conceded by God on condition that the blood is not consumed. It is not even the only source that requires slaughter at an altar for domestic cattle (I Samuel 14:32–35), though it is the only one that requires a sacrifice. (For the Deuteronomic change see Deut. 12:13–28.)

Kipper as “To Expiate” The final stage in the evolution of the root kipper yields the abstract, figurative notion, “expiate.” Having begun as an action which eliminates dangerous impurity by absorbing it through direct contact (rubbing) or indirect (transference), it eventuates into the process of expiation in general. Thus, the kipper role of all other sacrifices – whose blood is not daubed on the altar’s horns like the ḥ aṭ ṭ aʾt but is dashed on its sides – is to expiate sin. This is one of the functions of the ʿolah (Lev. 1:4) and the minḥ ah (Lev. 14:20), and the sole function of the aʾsham (Lev. 5:16, 18, 26; for details, see *Sacrifice). So with the kapporet placed over the Tabernacle Ark (Ex. 25:17–22); being a feminine abstract noun from kipper, it probably means “that which expiates” or “the expiatory.” And since it also designates the place where Moses “would hear the Voice addressing him” (Num. 7:89), it is the expiatory, par excellence.

Ritual Atonement without Kipper Whenever a sacrifice concludes the purification ritual for physical impurity it is always a ḥ aṭ ṭ aʾt, and its purpose is to kipper or purge the contaminated sanctuary. It is of interest that when a prophet or a psalmist resorts to a ritualistic metaphor in his call for moral purification, he never uses the term kipper but one which signifies lustration with water (e.g., Isa. 1:16; Ezek. 36:25; Zech. 13:1; Ps. 51:4,9). Of the sources just cited, Isaiah 1 (cf. in addition to v. 16, vs. 19–20, and v. 27 (“Those in Zion who repent”)) demands repentance as the proper atonement for moral wrongdoing, and so do many other non-ritual passages (see below). But the indispensability of repentance is a stipulation of the ritual texts as well. To begin with, the possibility of sacrificial atonement is explicitly denied to the individual who presumptuously violates God’s law (Num. 15:30–31). This, however, does not mean, as many critics aver, that sacrificial atonement is possible only for involuntary wrongdoers. To cite but one exception, the asham offering is prescribed for that premeditated crime called by the rabbis asham gezelot (Lev. 5:20ff.; Num. 5:5–8). A more correct assertion, then, would be that the priestly system prohibits sacrificial atonement to the unrepentant sinner, for the one who “acts defiantly… it is the Lord he reviles” (Num. 15:30). This is an explicit postulate of post-biblical literature: “the ḥ aṭ ṭ aʾt, the ʾasham, and death do not atone except with repentance” (Tosef., Yoma 5:9; cf. Yoma

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

181

kipper

8:8). That it is also explicitly demanded by the ritual texts of the Bible can only be sketchily demonstrated here as follows: The phrase ve(we)-ʾashem, the leitmotiv of the two exclusive expiatory sacrifices, the ḥ aṭ ṭ aʾt and the ʾasham (Lev. 4:13, 22, 27; 5:2, 3, 4, 17, 23), can be shown to mean: “when he feels guilty” or “when he is guilt-stricken.” Contrition, therefore, is an explicit sine qua non for expiation by sacrifice. Furthermore, it is precisely when the sin is deliberate, not accidental, that another penitential requirement is added, namely that the contrition must be openly declared; it must be supplemented by confession (we-hitwaddah; Lev. 5:5; Num. 5:7; cf. Lev. 16:21; 26:40). Even the annual purification rite for the sanctuary and nation requires that the high priest confess the deliberate sins of the Israelites (Lev. 16:21), while the latter demonstrate their penitence, not by coming to the Temple – from which deliberate sinners are barred – but by fasting and other acts of self-denial (Lev. 16:29; 23:27–32; Num. 29:7). Thus, contrition for involuntary sin and confession for deliberate sin are indispensable to the atonement produced by the sacrificial system, and they differ in no way from the call to repentance formulated by the prophets. Finally, the prescriptions of the asham offering ordained for cases of calculable loss to the deity stipulate that restitution must be made to the wronged party (man or sanctuary) before atonement by sacrifice is permitted. Indeed, the prophetic insistence that repentance is not an end in itself, but must lead to rectification of the wrongdoing (e.g., Isa. 1:13–17; 58:6–12; Micah 6:6–8), is only the articulation of a basic postulate of the sacrificial system. Non-Ritual Kipper for Sin Outside the sanctuary, kipper undergoes a vast change that is at once made apparent by its new grammatical syntax. Whereas in ritual, the subject of kipper is invariably a priest, and the direct object is a contaminated thing, in the non-ritual literature, usually the subject is the deity and the direct object is a sin (e.g., Jer. 18:8; Ezek. 16:63; Ps. 65:4; 78:38; 79:9). Actually, this represents no rupture with ritual kipper; on the contrary, it gives voice to its implicit meaning. As for the object, though the cult concentrates on the purging mainly of sanctuary impurity, it, too, recognizes that its source is human sin. The subject implies even less change: though the priest performs the rituals, it is only due to the grace of God that the ritual is efficacious. Thus, non-ritual exhortations, requiring no priestly mediation, uncompromisingly turn to God, the sole dispenser of expiation. True, there are a few kipper passages with man as subject (e.g., II Sam. 21:3; Isa. 47:11; Prov. 16:14), but all these exceptions are explicable by the representative kipper, i.e., man is required to provide the necessary ransom. The exceptional akhapperah panav (Gen. 32:20) is capable of similar interpretation, but the unique object “face” may go back to another facet of the Akkadian cognate, meaning “polish” (an aspect of “rub on”), hence “polish the face” or “propitiate,” “appease.” If rituals stipulate repentance as a precondition for atonement, moral exhortation will place a greater value upon repentance – and its vehicle, prayer – than upon ritual and sacrifice (e.g., Lev.

182

26: 40–41; Deut. 4:29; I Kings 8:28–30, 33, 35, 47–48; Ps. 51:19; 141:2; see also *Prayer). Forgiveness It has been maintained that early Israel knew no forgiveness of sin because both kipper and salaḥ (“forgive”) are mainly found in post-Exilic texts and because the pre-Exilic literature speaks exclusively of ve-niḥ am al ha-raʿah and avar le, implying that “God overlooks mild sins but does not obliterate them” (K. Koch). At once, a statistical objection should be raised against the arbitrary assignment of all cultic passages (where kipper would chiefly occur) and all consolatory prophetic passages (where salaḥ would predominate) to the post-Exilic period. Moreover, this view suffers from a more serious fault: it blurs the distinction between two stages in the process of divine pardoning common to all the biblical sources. The first, involving the above-mentioned idioms, never occurs when God is just contemplating punishment but only when He has actually decided upon it. The consequence is that before the guilty can implore God for forgiveness, they must prevail on Him to revoke His decree. This fundamental distinction is the touchstone that splits the story of Moses’ intercession for the Israelites when they sinned with the golden calf (Ex. 32–34) into plausible divisions. His initial plea (32:11–13) fulfills the first stage: “God renounced the punishment He had declared He would bring upon His people” (32:14). Moses, however, is not content with the cancelation of the divine decree. After slaying many, presumably the most guilty, he presses for the complete obliteration of Israel’s sin (32:30–32). This God does not grant (32:33–34), but when He reveals to Moses that His mercy can supersede His justice (34:6–7a), whenever He desires (33:19b), an opening is provided Moses whereby he can explicitly ask for forgiveness (salaḥ , 34:9). That the renunciation of punishment must be distinguished from forgiveness of sin is also clear from another instance of prophetic intercession (Amos 7:1–8; 8:1–2). Amos wants forgiveness (7:2); God only concedes the cancellation of punishment (7:3, 6). Even this He will not do more than twice (7:8), and finally Israel’s sins drive Him to declare “the end has come” (8:2). With Amos as with Moses, the language is crucial: God concedes partially to the prophet’s plea; he suspends punishment but does not grant the complete remission of sin. Finally, it should be noted that the idiom nasaʾ ḥ etʾ ʿavon (ʿawon) peshʿa can have the meaning “remove sin,” implying forgiveness. Moreover, it is used synonymously with maḥ ah and kipper, heʿevir ʿawon (Job 7:21), and salaḥ itself (Num. 14:18–19). So many early sources illustrate this usage (e.g., Ex. 34:7; I Sam. 15:25; Isa. 33:24; Hos. 14:3; Micah 7:18; Ps. 32:5) that it cannot be denied that the consciousness and absolution of sin were moral realities in all periods of Israel’s history. NON-RITUAL KIPPER FOR THE LAND. The holiness of the sanctuary is complemented in the Priestly Source by the no-

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kirby, jack

tion of the holiness of the Land of Israel. Correspondingly, the land too is capable of defilement (e.g., Lev. 18:25, 28, for sexual misconduct; Num. 35:33–34, for murder; cf. also Ezek. 36:17 and Deut. 21:23), and just as the sanctuary needs kipper so does the land (expressly, Num. 35:33). Furthermore, the implications are likewise identical: defilement of the land will vomit out Israel as it vomited out its previous inhabitants (Lev. 18:28; 20:22) for God can no longer abide in it (Sif. Num. 161). In this case, however, the parallels end, for there is no ceremony by which the land is purged; kipper, therefore, is not used ritually, but refers to general moral expiation. Atonement for the land becomes a more important concept in post-biblical times (e.g., LXX, Deut. 32:43; Jub. 6:2ff., where it is sacrificial!). The Dead Sea sectarians believed that their consecrated life was an atonement not just for themselves but also for the entire land (1QS 8:6, 10; 9:4). KIPPER-INTERCESSION. Another postulate of the biblical doctrine of atonement is that God will spare the community by virtue of the merit of its just, e.g., Abraham’s intervention on behalf of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:16–33). However, intercession is chiefly the vocation of the prophet. The Psalmist eulogizes Moses for interceding on behalf of the worshipers of the golden calf (see Ex. 32:9–10) in these words: “He said He would destroy them had not Moses, His chosen one, stood in the breach before Him” (Ps. 106:23). To intercede at the risk of one’s life is to “stand in the breach.” (It should be recalled that though there are gentile analogues to the prophet as the deity’s messenger to humans (see *Mari, *Prophets), there is still none which demonstrates that the prophet is also man’s intercessor to the deity.) It has been thought that Ezekiel refutes this doctrine of the atonement by the righteous, for he does say repeatedly and forcefully that the righteous will not save his generation, but that each man will be judged according to his sins (Ezek. 18:3–4). This is not so. Ezekiel, a priest as well as a prophet, is expatiating on a corollary of the priestly theology of the Temple (above). The reason why God abandons His sanctuary is that the level of impurity rises to a point beyond toleration. Beyond this point, God will neither seek man’s repentance nor allow the prophet to intercede for him: the decree of doom becomes irrevocable. This postulate is found beyond the confines of the Priestly Source; it informs all biblical teaching on evil: the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Ex. 7:3, 14; 8:11, 15, 28, etc.); Isaiah’s harsh commission (Isa. 6:10); and the prohibition placed on the prophet to intercede (Jer. 14:11; 15:1–2). This latter Jeremian passage illuminates Ezekiel’s message as well, for both prophets experienced the destruction of Judah, and both had taught that their generation was doomed. However, Ezekiel never abandoned his belief in the efficacy of prophetic intercession, as demonstrated by his wistful comment on the Psalmist’s allusion to Moses’ self-sacrifice: “I sought a man who would plug up the wall and stand in the breach before Me on behalf of the land that I should not destroy it; but I found none” (22:30).

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

The concept of atonement developed among the Dead Sea sectarians takes a unique turn. Without the Temple, they were forced to concentrate upon non-sacrificial expiation (e.g., 1QS 9:4–5), and they developed a lofty spiritual doctrine which taught that purity of thought and deed were necessary preconditions of all ritual acts and that the virtuous life of the individual effects atonement for others. However, the circle of the latter was restricted to members of the sect (perhaps also the like-minded, 1QS 5:5–7), and the rest of Israel was uniformly excluded. This insularity is not surprising in view of the teaching of Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Like these prophets, the sect also felt that universal doom was at hand, from which the righteous would save only themselves. This will also help explain the sectarians’ insistence that their atonement also extended to the land (see above). Since they envisaged for themselves no additional exile (1QM 1:2f.; CD 4:2f.; 7:13f.) – as did the prophets – the Land of Israel was therefore in need of atonement so that the righteous survivors of the impending cataclysm could settle on it immediately (1QS a 1:3). The atoning power of the righteous reaches out not only horizontally to the community but also vertically to posterity. This principle undergirds all of God’s covenants with Israel: with the Fathers for offspring and the Promised Land (Gen. 15; 17:1–8; 22:17–18; 25:23; 35:9–12; Ex. 32:13); with Phinehas for a priestly line (Num. 25:13); and with David for a royal dynasty (II Sam. 7:12–16). In the wisdom literature the suffering of the righteous is rationalized into a theological postulate: suffering is a test whereby God enables the righteous to merit an even greater reward (e.g., Ps. 66:9–12; Job 5:17–18; 33:9–12; 36:8–10). This idea also informs the narratives of the Wilderness (Ex. 16:4; Deut. 8:2, 16) and of the Fathers (e.g., Gen. 22:1, 16–18). A logical extension of this theodicy is that suffering can serve as an atonement for society. However, it is not an explicit biblical doctrine, for nowhere do the innocent suffer to atone for the guilty. It may be adumbrated by the final Servant poems (Isa. 50:4ff.; 53), but its unfolding is realized in post-biblical times (see Deutero-Isaiah in *Isaiah). Bibliography: Médebielle, in: DBI, Supplément, 4 (1938), 48–81; H.H. Rowley, Worship in Ancient Israel (1967); Landsberger, in: AFO, 17 (1967), 30–34; L. Moraldi, Espiazione sacrificiale e riti espiatori nell’ ambiente biblico (1956), 109–81; R. de Vaux, Studies in Old Testament Sacrifice (1964), 91–112; J. Milgrom, Studies in Levitical Terminology, 1 (1969), §28; idem, in: JQR, 58 (1967/68), 115–25; Extreme opposing positions are taken by: A. Buechler, Studies in Sin and Atonement (1928), and K. Koch, in: Evangelische Theologie, 26 (1966), 217–39. Add. Bibliography: B. Levine, in: ErIsr, 9 (1969), 88–95; idem, JPS Torah Commentary Leviticus (1989); J. Milgrom, Leviticus 1–16 (AB; 1991); idem, Leviticus 17–22 (AB; 2000); idem, Leviticus 23–27 (AB; 2001). [Jacob Milgrom]

KIRBY, JACK (Jacob Kurtzberg; 1917–1994), U.S. comic book creator. Kirby was born in New York City and began work in the comics industry in the 1930s. By 1940 he had teamed with Joe Simon, his partner for the next 15 years. They

183

kirchheim, raphael

created the character Captain America in 1941 and it instantly became an American icon and the country’s morale-boosting anti-Nazi hero. The following year they produced the Boy Commandos comics, stories about young soldiers, which sold a million copies an issue. After World War II the team created popular-romance comics. In 1958 Kirby went to work for Marvel Comics, where he collaborated with the dialogue writer and editor Stan *Lee. They created such characters as Mighty Thor and the Incredible Hulk, among many superheroes with human characteristics. In a 50-year career, Kirby produced many of the comics’ most successful concepts and was considered responsible for more comic book sales than any other artist, writer, or editor. [Stewart Kampel (2nd ed.)]

KIRCHHEIM, RAPHAEL (1804–1889), German scholar and author. Kirchheim was born in Frankfurt. He served as shoḥ et in Frankfurt and later became a partner in a banking house, which allowed him to devote most of his time to scholarly pursuits. He was at first an opponent of Reform and severely criticized the radicalism of the 1845 rabbinical assemblies of Brunswick and Frankfurt, as in his edition of S.J. Rapoport, Tokhaḥ at Megullah (Heb. and Ger., 1845) and his open letter to A.J. Adler of Worms (1845). Under the influence of Abraham *Geiger, however, he became a proponent of Reform. Kirchheim edited Geiger’s Hebrew writings under the title Kevuẓ at Ma’amarim (1877). Among Kirchheim’s published works are the annotations to the section “Va’ad la-Ḥ akhamim” and a biography of Ḥ .J.D. *Azulai in the annotated edition of Azulai’s biobibliographical lexicon Shem ha-Gedolim prepared by Kirchheim in association with A. Fuld and others (1847); Karmei Shomron (1851), a study of the history, religion, and literature of the Samaritans; an edition with commentary of the seven minor Palestinian tractates, Sheva Massekhtot Ketannot Yerushalmiyyot (1851, repr. 1966); an edition of Eliezer Ashkenazi’s Ta’am Zekenim (1854); an edition of Perush al Divrei ha-Yamim, a tenth-century commentary on Chronicles (1874); the introduction to B. Goldberg’s 1856 edition of Ibn Janaḥ ’s Sefer ha-Rikmah; and a number of other introductions. In his Neue Exegetenschule (1867) he severely criticized S.R. Hirsch’s Pentateuch commentary, particularly his extravagant etymologies. Kirchheim’s library passed to the Religious School of the Frankfurt community and later to the National and University Library, Jerusalem. Bibliography: S. Unna, in: JJLG, 12 (1918), 318ff.; 20 (1929), 19ff.; B.Z. Dinur, in: KS, 1 (1924), 150ff., 318ff.; 4 (1927), 67ff., 166ff., 328ff.; J. Unna, in: BLBI, 4 (1961), 221–31.

the Office of Strategic Services and later in the State Department. He taught at various universities and from 1960 to his death was professor of political science at Columbia University in New York. In his major work, Political Justice (1961), he pointed out how the misuse of justice can lead to the destruction of democracy. [Edwin Emanuel Gutmann]

KIRCHNER, LEON (1919– ), U.S. composer, and pianist. Born in Brooklyn, Kirchner studied piano and began to compose at an early age. When he was nine, the family moved to Los Angeles, where he studied under Ernst *Toch, and later Arnold *Schoenberg. In 1938–39 he studied at Berkeley with Elkus and Strickland. After a year of graduate work at the University of California in Los Angeles, he returned to Berkeley, where he came under the influence of Ernest *Bloch. In 1942 he studied with Roger Sessions in New York and was awarded the George Ladd Prix de Paris. After his military service (1943–46), he was appointed lecturer in music at Berkeley. In 1954 he became professor of music at Mills College in Oakland and in 1961 was appointed to the Walter Bigelow Rosen Chair of Music at Harvard (until 1989). Kirchner was a distinguished pianist who gave the first performances of many of his own works, notably the First Piano Concerto in 1953, when it won the Naumberg Foundation Award. Other prize-winning works include the First and Second String Quartets (New York Music Critics’ Circle Award for Chamber Music), the Third String Quartet (Pulitzer Prize, 1967), and Music for Cello and Orchestra (the Friedheim Award, 1992). He received awards from institutions such as the Guggenheim Foundation, the American Academy of Arts and Letters (1962), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1963), and the Center for Advanced Study of Behavioral Sciences (1974). His music, complex in idiom, is nevertheless strongly passionate, even romantic, in feeling and always crafted with masterly technical skill. His other works include, Sinfonia for orchestra (1951); Toccata for strings, wind, and percussion (1955); the Second Piano Concerto (first performance 1963, soloist Leon *Fleisher); Music for Orchestra (1969); Piano Sonata (1948); Little Suite for piano (1949); the opera Lily (1973–76); Music for Flute and Orchestra (1978); 5 Pieces for Piano (1984); Music for Orchestra II (1989); Trio for violin, cello, and piano (1993); Of Things Exactly as They Are, for soprano, bass, chorus and orchestra (1997); Interlude II for piano (2003). Add. Bibliography: Grove online; MGG2. [Max Loppert / Israela Stein (2nd ed.)]

KIRCHHEIMER, OTTO (1905–1965), political scientist. Born in Germany, Kirchheimer was admitted to the German bar and was active in the social democratic movement. He lectured at German trade union schools and published a number of essays on the political and legal problems of the Weimar Republic. After the advent of Nazism, he went first to Paris and in 1937 to the U.S. From 1944 to 1951 Kirchheimer worked in

KIRHARESETH (Heb., ‫יר־ח ֶר ׁ ֶשת‬ ֲ ‫ ִק‬, ׂ‫יר־ח ֶרש‬ ֶ ‫ ִק‬, ‫ ִקיר־מוֹ ָאב‬, Kir Heres; Kir of Moab), ancient capital of *Moab situated on the high plateau east of the Dead Sea and south of the Arnon River. In the days of *Mesha, king of Moab in the mid-ninth century B.C.E., Kir-Hareseth was besieged by Jehoram of Israel and Jehoshaphat of Judah; their failure to capture the city ended in a disastrous retreat for their armies (II Kings 3). It is mentioned as a Moabite city in the “burdens of Moab” which

184

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kirjath sepher

foretell its destruction (Isa. 15:1; 16:7,11; Jer. 48:31,36). In postbiblical times it was known as Charachmoba, a city striking coins under Heliogabalus (Ptolemaeus, 5:16, 4). Impressions of seals of municipal authorities with zodiac signs and the names of Nabatean months (in Greek) were discovered at Maurpsis. It was the seat of a bishop in Byzantine times (Hierocles, Synecdemus, 721:5). The Greek Charach, “palisade,” corresponds to Kir in Hebrew. On the Madaba Map it is represented as a walled fortress with a gate flanked by towers on the south. Within the walls are colonnaded streets and two churches. Kir-Hareseth is now known as Karak, a name which is mentioned by Arab geographers in about 1225. In Crusader times Payen le Bouteiller transferred his residence to Karak in 1140 and built a famous fortress there. Held from 1177 to 1187 by Renauld de Chatillon, it was the principal stronghold of this baron; from there he attacked Muslim caravans. Saladin failed to take Karak in 1183; it fell only in 1188 after a year-long siege. The fortress is c. 800 m. (2,600 ft.) long and 100 m. (330 ft.) wide, with a fosse 30 m. (100 ft.) deep. It was later held by alMalik al-Ayubi. It was the scene of revolts against Turkish rule in 1893 and 1910. Karak in 1970 was a district town in Jordan, with about 15,000 inhabitants. Bibliography: A. Musil, Arabia Petraea, 1 (1907), 45ff., 359ff.; Glueck, in: aasor, 15 (1935), 4; M. Avi-Yonah, Madaba Mosaic Map (1954), 41–42; Aharoni, Land, index; A. Negev, in: iej, 19 (1969), 89. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

KIRIATHJEARIM (Heb. ‫) ִק ְריַ ת יְ ָע ִרים‬, city of the Hivites belonging to the Gibeonite confederation (Josh. 9:17). Its original name was Kiriath-Ba’al or Baalah. Kiriath-Jearim was situated on the border of Judah and Benjamin (Josh. 15:9, 60; 18:14, 15) and was connected with the family of *Caleb (I Chron. 2:50, 52, 53). The tribe of Dan camped in its vicinity for some time (Judg. 18:12). When the Ark was rescued from the Philistines, it was placed in the house of Abinadab in Kiriath-Jearim (I Sam. 6:21; 7:1, 2) until eventually brought by David to Jerusalem (II Sam. 6:2ff.; I Chron. 13:5, 6; II Chron. 1:4). It was the home town of *Uriah, the son of the prophet Shemaiah, who fled to Egypt and was caught and executed by the king Jehoiakim (Jer. 26:20). The inhabitants of Kiriath-Jearim were among those who returned from Babylonian exile (Ezra 2:25; Neh. 7:29). According to Eusebius, the place was a station 9 or 10 mi. from Jerusalem on the road to Diospolis (Lod; Onom. 48:22; 114:23). The identification of Kiriath-Jearim with Tell/ Deir (Dayr) al-ʿAzār about 8 mi. (13 km.) west of Jerusalem in the village of *Abu Ghosh is generally accepted. The Crusaders considered this site to be the ancient Emmaus, also calling it Fontenoid because of the springs below the tell.

Crimea, Abraham was named Kirimi after the town of EskiKrym (Solkhat). He wrote a commentary to the Pentateuch entitled Sefat Emet. In a poem which precedes the introduction he mentions the year 1358, but it is not clear whether he is referring to the date of his birth or to the composition of the work. In the introduction he gives as his reasons for compiling the work the urging of his contemporaries, particularly his “friend and pupil,” Hezekiah b. Elchanan “Ish Kara’i,” a phrase apparently meaning “the Karaite.” Deinard’s opinion, however, is that Hezekiah was not a Karaite and that the words mean “versed in the bible,” as it seems incredible that Abraham was urged by a Karaite to write an anti-Karaite work. It is nevertheless possible that Hezekiah asked Abraham for a Bible commentary, and the latter wrote one in keeping with his outlook. Apparently Abraham was a pupil of the biblical exegete *Shemariah b. Elijah Ikriti, whom he quotes in numerous passages in the Sefat Emet, and who exercised great influence over him. The book reveals Abraham as a literal commentator who explains the text according to the plain meaning of the words and the rules of grammar. In accordance with this approach, he on one occasion criticizes Rashi despite the great respect in which he held him, and praises Abraham Ibn Ezra and, above all, Maimonides. The spirit of the Guide of the Perplexed infuses the whole of the Sefat Emet, but occasionally Abraham even goes beyond the rationalism of Maimonides. He attempts to give a rational interpretation to the miracles of the Bible. He explains the visit of the three angels to Abraham and the burning bush of Moses as dream visions, and in explaining the paschal lamb he mentions the Egyptian cult of the bull. Despite these views he was highly regarded among the Jews of the Crimea, and in their memorial prayers he is mentioned immediately after Abraham Ibn Ezra. It is possible that the high regard in which he was held was the result of his opposition to Karaite Bible exegesis and his support of the traditional view. Bibliography: M. Steinschneider, in: HB, 11 (1871), 38f.; A. Firkovich, in: Ha-Karmel, 3 (1863), 53f.; Fuenn, Keneset, 62f.; Y. Zinberg, in: Yevreyskaya Starina, 11 (1924), 97–101; Zinberg, Sifrut, 3 (1958), 157–61, 353; E. Deinard, Massa Krim (1878), 178–80. [Isaak Dov Ber Markon]

KIRIMI, ABRAHAM (14t century), Crimean rabbi and Bible commentator. One of the first Jewish scholars in the

KIRJATH SEPHER, Hebrew bibliographical quarterly. Kirjath Sepher was founded in 1924 as a publication of the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem. The bibliographical section consists of three major divisions: Israel publications; Hebraica and Judaica (published outside of Israel); and periodical articles on Judaica and Hebraica. The last served as basis for the publication of index volumes of articles on Jewish studies, Reshimat ha-Ma’amarim be-Madda’ei ha-Yahadut (ed. by I. Joel, 1–2 [1966–67]). A special section is devoted to articles on Jewish, particularly bibliographical, subjects. These include, apart from bibliographies of the works of individual authors and of special subjects, an annual bibliography of medieval Hebrew poetry (ed., H. Schirmann) and studies on the history of Hebrew printing in places to which

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

185

Bibliography: Abel, in: RB, 34 (1925), 580; 43 (1934), 351; M. Noth, Das Buch Josua (1938), 61–62, 81; EM, S.V. Ba’alah (includes bibliography); Aharoni, Land, index; Avi-Yonah, Geog, index. [Michael Avi-Yonah]

kirkisnĪ, jacob al-

previously little attention had been paid. An important section of Kirjath Sepher is reserved for book reviews; Hebrew University faculty and others contribute detailed criticisms of current Jewish literature. From time to time larger studies appear as special supplements (cf. “Index to Volumes 1–40” [supplement to vol. 41, 1966/67], 105). The first editors of Kirjath Sepher were S.H. *Bergmann and H. *Pick, in association with S. *Assaf, B. *Dinur, A. Tauber, L.A. *Mayer, and G. *Scholem. From 1927 to 1968 the editor was I. Joel who was succeeded by G.Y. Ormann. [Baruch Yaron]

KIRKISĀNĪ, JACOB AL (Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ishaq ibn Samʿawayh al-Qirqisani; first half of tenth century), Karaite scholar. His surname has been variously derived from Qirqīsīyā, the ancient Circesium, in the Midrash (Lam. R. 1:18, no. 53), Kirkesyon, in Upper Mesopotamia, and from Qarqasān, a small town in the vicinity of Baghdad. The sequence of his names implies that he was called Jacob, his father Isaac, and his son Joseph, reproducing the sequence of the biblical patriarchs. Later Karaite authors thought erroneously that his forename was Joseph and confused him with the Karaite scholar Joseph b. Abraham ha-Ro’eh (Yūsuf *al-Baṣ īr) who lived a century later. Nothing is known of al-Kirkisānī’s personal life beyond what may be inferred from his own works. He was thoroughly acquainted with the contemporary Arabic theological, philosophical, and scientific literature, and had a substantial knowledge of the Mishnah, the Gemara, some midrashic works, and the *Rabbanite liturgy. He also read the New Testament and the Koran, and perhaps some of the Christian patristic literature. Of his non-Karaite associates he mentions the Rabbanite scholar *Jacob b. Ephraim and the Christian “bishop,” or rather deacon, Yasʿu Sekhā, with both of whom he was on terms of personal friendship. Unlike some Karaite fanatics, he avoided personal vituperation in his anti-Rabbanite polemics. Al-Kirkisānī let the logic of his thought and the range of his learning speak for themselves, so that he was by far the most formidable champion of Karaism of his age. Since he was a firm believer in the use of reason and intelligence in theology and jurisprudence, his views in this field are characterized by common sense and moderation, although he did not hesitate to ally himself with the partisans of such rigoristic laws as the catenary (rikkuv) theory of forbidden marriages. Al-Kirkisānī’s principal work is divided into two parts, of which the first, entitled Kitāb al-Anwār wa-al-Marāqib (“Book of Lights and Watch-Towers”), is a systematic code of Karaite law, while the second part, entitled Kitāb al-Riyāḍ wa-al-Ḥ adāʾiq (“Book of Gardens and Parks”), is a commentary on the nonlegal parts of the Torah, prefaced by a detailed discourse on the methods of biblical exegesis. The “Book of Lights” is divided into 13 discourses: (1) history of the Jewish sects; (2) on the validity of the application of rational investigation to theology and jurisprudence;

186

(3) refutation of the doctrines of the various sects, including Christianity and Islam; (4) treatise on the methods of interpretation of the law; (5) on circumcision and Sabbath; (6) on commandments, other than the Sabbath, including a detailed treatise on the liturgy; (7) on new moons; (8) on the Feast of Weeks; (9) on the remaining holy days; (10) on cleanness and uncleanness; (11) on incest; (12) on dietary law; (13) on inheritance. Throughout Kirkisānī makes constant reference to the views of other Karaite jurists, particularly Anan and Benjamin b. Moses *Nahawendi, as well as those of the Rabbanites. Its erudition, detail, and excursuses on various subjects (e.g., on dialectics, witchcraft, the psychopathology of sleep and dreams, suicide, the varying pronunciation of Hebrew words) give the “Book of Lights” permanent importance as a source book. Several smaller works of al-Kirkisānī, now untraceable, are cited in the “Book of Lights.” They include (1) extensive philosophic-exegetical commentaries on Genesis, Job, and Ecclesiastes; (2) a tract in refutation of Muhammad’s claim to prophecy Kitāb fī Ifsād Nubūwat Muḥ ammad; (3) an essay on the art of interpretation, Al-Qawl ʿalā al-Tafir̄ wa-Sharḥ al-Maʿānī; (4) an essay on the art of translation, Al-Qawl ʿalā al-Tarjamah; (5) a treatise on the principles of faith (literally, “on the oneness of God”) Kitāb al Tawḥ īd, perhaps intended as a Karaite reply to Saadiah’s Emunot ve-De’ot. The Kitāb al-Anwār is the only work of Kirkisānī which has been published in its entirety (by L. Nemoy, 5 vols., 1939–43). The first discourse was translated into English by L. Nemoy (HUCA, (1930), 317ff.), who also translated several chapters from other discourses (for example in JBL, 57 (1938), 411ff.; 59 (1940), 159ff.). An abridgement of it (Mukhtaṣ ar alAnwār) is extant in manuscript. The introduction to the Kitāb al-Riyāḍ was published by H. Hirschfeld (Qirqisānī Studies, 1918). A revised translation of part of the first discourse and of Hirschfeld’s text is found in L. Nemoy, Karaite Anthology (1952), 42ff. Bibliography: G. Vajda, in: REJ, 106 (1941–45), 87–123, 137–40; 107 (1946–47), 52–98; 108 (1948), 63–91; 120 (1961), 211–57; 122 (1963), 7–74; Mann, Texts, index; Z. Ankori, Karaites in Byzantium (1959), index, S.V. Jacob [al] Kirkisani; Steinschneider, Arab Lit, 79ff.; S. Poznański, Karaite Literary Opponents of Saadiah Gaon (1908), 8ff. [Leon Nemoy]

°KIRKPATRICK, ALEXANDER FRANCIS (1849–1940), English Bible critic who as general editor of the Bible and Apocrypha sections of the semi-popular Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges championed a series of commentaries which attempted to show how textual, linguistic, historical, ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kirovograd

and higher criticism compel readers to reverse many of their traditional ideas in regard to the Bible. Kirkpatrick taught at Cambridge and in 1882 at the early age of 33 was appointed Regius Professor of Hebrew and canon of Ely. He later served as master of Selwyn College, Cambridge (1898–1927), and dean of Ely (1906–36). Kirkpatrick was a popular lecturer and administrator who helped educate a conservative English clergy and laity to the merits of biblical criticism, which seeks to confirm, correct, and supplement the history and narrative of Holy Scriptures. The most important of his books are: The Divine Library of the Old Testament… (1891), The Doctrine of the Prophets (1892, 19582), and commentaries on Psalms (1902), and Samuel (1930). These last two were published in the Cambridge Bible series.

KIROVOGRAD (until 1924 Yelizavetgrad, from 1924 to 1936 Zinovyevsk, and from 1936 to 1939 Kirovo), district capital in Ukraine. Jews began to settle in Kirovograd in 1769 together with other nationalities. In 1799 they numbered 398 persons (out of 4,327 total population), and in 1803 there were 574 Jews listed in the municipal register. The Jewish population of Kiro-

vograd increased rapidly during the 19t century as a result of the settlement of the New Russia provinces by Jewish emigrants from the northern provinces of the *Pale of Settlement. In 1861 there were 8,073 Jews in the city, while in 1897 their numbers had increased to 23,967 (39 of the total population). In 1879 there were 120 large-scale Jewish merchants among 160; 650 petty traders among the 900; 280 Jewish craftsmen and 368 Christians; and 46 Jewish landowners. From the mid19t century there were an old-age home for 25 people, about 50 ḥ adarim, two first-level state Jewish schools, two talmudei torah, and 17 private schools, mostly for girls. In 1882 a Reform anti-talmudic society called the Bible Brotherhood (Bibleitzy) was founded by Jacob *Gordin. Severe riots broke out in Kirovograd on April 15–17, 1881, marking the beginning of the spate of pogroms which struck the Jews of southern Russia during the 1880s. The damage from robbery and destruction of shops and houses was estimated at 1.9 million rubles. In 1887 there were 12 Jewish city council members out of 67. At the end of the 19t century there were signs of powerful tendencies toward assimilation and russification among the Jews of Kirovograd, but at the same time the nationalist and Zionist movement under the leadership of V. *Tiomkin also gained adherents. The Jews played an important role in the town. The majority of the flour mills and the spirit and tobacco factories were under their control, and the commerce in grain was also concentrated in their hands. On October 18–19, 1905, a state-sponsored pogrom occurred, 11 Jews were murdered, 150 wounded, and the police forbade the mutual ChristianJewish self-defense to intervene. In the course of World War I about 3,000 deported Jews reached Kirovograd. Among them was the Lida yeshivah with 96 pupils. During the Civil War there were three pogroms in 1919: the first, on February 4–5, claimed the lives of 13 Jewish self-defenders; the second, on May 15–17, resulted in 1,926 killed; and the third, on August 11, claimed about 1,000 victims. The last two pogroms were staged by the Grigoryev gang. With the establishment of the Soviet regime, Jewish institutions were closed down and Jewish communal life was suppressed. In 1926, 18,358 Jews (27.6 of the total population) lived in Kirovograd, with the number dropping to 14,641 (14.6) by 1939. During the 1920s trade was liquidated, and some Jewish merchants went to work in factories, while 142 families settled on land. In 1925 there were 2,500 Jewish artisans, and they composed the vast majority in some trade unions, such as 99 in the tailors’ union and 75 in the printers’ union. In 1929 most of the workers in the textile industry were Jews, and among 6,000 workers of the farm machinery factory – 900 were Jews. In the 1920s there were several Yiddish schools, but due to the pressure of the authorities and the russified parents most of them closed in the 1930s. The Germans occupied the town on August 14, 1941. The registration by nationality showed a bit more than 5,000 Jews in town. On August 23 and in mid-September Einsatzkommando 4b murdered a few hundred Jews. Several hundreds of men were taken to a camp and killed after a while. On September 30, 1941, all Jews were gathered together, taken to

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

187

Add. Bibliography: R. Clements, in: DBI, 2:28–29. [Zev Garber]

KIRKUK, town in N. Iraq. The first known Jewish settlement in Kirkuk dates from the 17t century. There is information available on local Jews who traded mainly with Baghdad during the 18t century. Various travelers – Jewish and nonJewish – of the 19t and early 20t centuries report on the existence of a Jewish community numbering about 200 families which lived in a separate quarter in the town. In May 1918 the town was captured by the British with the assistance of its Christian and Jewish inhabitants. After two weeks the town was retaken by the Turks, who persecuted the Jews who had not succeeded in leaving. After the war the number of Jews in Kirkuk increased, especially after it became a center of the petroleum industry. In 1947, 2,350 Jews were counted in a census. The Jews engaged in commerce, hawking, and handicrafts. In 1913 an elementary school was opened by the Alliance Israélite Universelle, but it closed with the outbreak of World War I. It was only in 1934 that a Jewish school was founded in the town by the philanthropist Ellis *Kadoorie. Social progress was slow, and it was only during the 1940s that some of the youth who graduated from the government secondary school acquired an academic education. Some individuals now left the closed quarter in order to build houses outside it. The attitude toward the Jews by the population, which was mostly Turkish, was generally hostile. In 1888 a Jewish child was abducted by a maidservant and taken to a mosque, the Muslims refusing to return him. There were, however, no anti-Jewish riots as elsewhere in *Iraq, not even in 1941. All the Jews of the town immigrated to Israel in 1950–51. Bibliography: A. Ben-Jacob, Kehillot Yehudei Kurdistan (1967), 117–22. [Haim J. Cohen]

kirsanov, semyon isaakovich

anti-tank ditches about 3 km. from town, and murdered there. Anyone hiding who was caught was executed in prison. Only about ten Jews survived. In 1970 the Jewish population was estimated at about 10,000. The synagogue was closed by the authorities in 1957 but returned to the community in 1991 as Jewish life revived despite large-scale emigration. Bibliography: Die Judenpogrome in Russland, 2 (1909), 138–43; E. Heifetz, The Slaughter of the Jews in the Ukraine in 1919 (1921), 243–8; Rosenthal, in: Reshumot, 3 (1923), 413–14; E. Tcherikower, Di Ukrainer Pogromen in Yor 1919 (1965), index. [Yehuda Slutsky / Shmuel Spector (2nd ed.)]

KIRSANOV, SEMYON ISAAKOVICH (1906–1972), Russian poet. Kirsanov was born in Odessa as the son of a tailor and graduated there from the philological faculty in 1925. He became a disciple of the Soviet writer Vladimir Mayakovsky. He continued that poet’s tradition of brash, masculine verse with unconventional imagery and metrics and unexpected verbal acrobatics. Kirsanov was one of the very few Soviet poets to build on the foundations laid by the futurist movement. He favored social and political subjects. Much of his poetry is declamatory in form and propagandistic in content. Though outwardly similar to much of mediocre Soviet verse, it is redeemed by its hyperbolic quality which imparts to it a myth-like quality. Among his more noteworthy collections are Stikhi v stroyu (“Verses in Military Formation,” 1932), and Mys zhelaniya (“The Cape of Desire,” 1938). The best of his longer poems include Tovarishch Marks (“Comrade Marx,” 1933), Poema o robote (“A Poem About the Automaton,” 1935), and Noch pod Novy vek (“New Century’s Eve,” 1937). During World War II Kirsanov wrote much anti-Nazi verse. He also produced rhymed ditties for propaganda posters, and was the creator of Zavetnoye slovo Fomy Smyslova (“Mark the Words of Foma Smyslov”), an anti-Nazi comic strip serialized in Soviet army newspapers. His marked fondness for biblical imagery may be connected with memories of childhood in the intensely Jewish milieu of Odessa. Thus, a poem written in the late 1940s is entitled Edem (“Paradise”) – an unusual instance of a biblical word used as a title for a Russian poem. Kirsanov’s best-known post-Stalin poetic work – and one of the most important of the “thaw” – was Sem dney nedeli (“Seven Days of the Week,” 1957). This long narrative poem, modeled after the account of the creation in Genesis, states that the Soviet system has been successful in creating material objects, but that real man, free of cowardice and greed, is yet to be created. The poem was violently denounced as anti-Soviet slander, but Kirsanov succeeded in weathering the storm. [Maurice Friedberg]

ership of land was forbidden to Jews, Kirschbaum took out a certificate of baptism, but he nevertheless remained faithful to Judaism. From his student days he was in contact with David *Friedlaender and Leopold *Zunz. He was a member of the *Verein fuer Kultur und Wissenschaft des Judentums and in 1821 presented it with a memorandum in which he adopted a positive attitude toward the idea of a Jewish state, identified himself with the program of Mordecai Manuel *Noah, but advocated Ethiopia instead of the United States as the transitional territory to Ereẓ Israel. His works include Leket Shirim u-Meliẓ ot (1820, Heb. and Ger.), a collection of poems and proverbs; Hilkhot Yemot ha-Mashi’aḥ (1822), in which he interpreted messianism as the political, non-miraculous redemption of the Jewish people; Maimonides Specimen Diacteticum (1822); Vorschlaege betreffend einige gesellschaftliche Institutionen (1842), lectures on social institutions; Aufsaetze im Gebiete der Religion und des sozialen Lebens (1843), essays relating to religion and socialism; and Es ist noch heute oder Der Familie Apotheose (1858). Bibliography: A. Ginzig, in: Oẓ ar ha-Sifrut, 3 (part 4, 1890), 9–10; Sefer Kraka (1959), 81–83; N.M. Gelber, Toledot ha-Tenu’ah haẒ iyyonit be-Galiẓ yah, 1 (1958), 24–29. [Moshe Landau]

KIRSCHBRAUN, ELIJAH (1882–1931), leader of *Agudat Israel in Poland. Kirschbraun, who was born in Warsaw into a religious family and was a notable scholar, formed an independent religious organization in Warsaw in 1911, and in 1912 took part in the founding convention of Agudat Israel in Katowice. After World War I, when the Jewish communities were constituted in independent Poland, he was elected chairman of the Jewish community council in Warsaw and representative of religious Jewry on the Warsaw municipal council. Between 1922 and 1931 Kirschbraun was member of the Polish parliament (Sejm) and member of its security committee. He was chairman of the Agudat Israel faction in parliament, and vice president of the “Jewish club” (“Koło”) in 1926. His personal integrity and efforts for the benefit of the public won appreciation among all sectors of Jewry and Polish government circles. In the 1922 elections he recommended that his party join the *minority bloc led by Y. *Gruenbaum, but after Pilsudski’s coup (May 1926) he abandoned Gruenbaum’s policy and supported the Sanacja regime. His last act, on his deathbed, was to send a letter to Pilsudski, which both the Jewish public and Polish leaders regarded as a testament, urging full and just rights for the Jews in independent Poland. Add. Bibliography: J. Majchrowski et al. (eds.), Kto byl kim w drugiej Rzeczypospolitej (1994), 316. [Yitzchak Arad]

KIRSCHBAUM, ELIEZER SINAI (1798–1870), physician and author; leader of the *Haskalah in Galicia; born in Sieniawa, Poland. In 1816 he went to Berlin to study medicine and later practiced in Cracow, where he distinguished himself during the cholera epidemic in 1831. In appreciation, the senate of the Republic of Cracow awarded him a building plot. As own-

KIRSCHENBAUM, MORDECHAI (Motti; 1939– ), Israeli television producer and broadcaster. A graduate of the University of California in theater, cinema, and television, Kirschenbaum was among the founders of Israeli television. Producer in the 1970s of a hugely popular weekly satirical show called

188

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kirshblum, mordecai

Niku’i Rosh (“Cleaning the Head”), in 1976 he won the Israel Prize for radio, film, and television arts. The program was not without its critics and was subject to political pressure. Kirschenbaum’s tenure as head of Hebrew programming at Israel Television, including the drama department, was not renewed in 1979 by Tommy *Lapid, the Likud-appointed Broadcasting Authority director-general. In 1993 he was appointed the Authority’s director-general by Shulamit *Aloni, the Meretz communications minister. Kirschenbaum’s period as director-general, until 1998, was characterized by strict impartiality in editorial decision-making, despite his generally leftist outlook, as well as protection of broadcasters from political pressure. Yet he failed in financial management, and the Broadcasting Authority ran into a heavy deficit. Moreover, ratings dropped with the creation of a second, privately run and more commercially oriented second channel (Channel 2). In 2001 Kirschenbaum headed the television production company that won the tender for Channel 10 television, another commercial station. Subsequently he also co-hosted Channel 10’s popular and free-wheeling London and Kirschenbaum talk show with Yaron London. [Yoel Cohen (2nd ed.)]

KIRSCHNER, EMANUEL (1857–1938), German ḥ azzan and composer. Born in Upper Silesia, Kirschner became a music student at the Jewish Teachers’ Training College, Berlin, in 1874. In 1877 he taught in the Berlin Jewish community’s school and was appointed assistant ḥ azzan in its new synagogue. Four years later he was appointed chief cantor at the Great Synagogue of Munich and teacher in the synagogue school. His principal work Tehillot le-El Elyon (“Praises to the Almighty,” 1896) for cantor, choir, and organ, written in four parts, gave prominence to traditional melodies. Kirschner also published studies on various aspects of synagogue music. He died shortly after the destruction of his synagogue by the Nazis.

ing religion and Hebrew; and Der Unterricht in der biblischen Geschichte (1871), on the teaching of biblical history. A collection of scientific treatises, lectures, speeches, and sermons, among them Avnei Zikkaron (Predigten; 1902), was published after his death. Bibliography: Festschrift zur Feier des hundertjaehrigen Bestehens der Knabenschule der juedischen Gemeinden in Berlin (1926), 107; A. Kober, in: LBYB, 2 (1957), 111. [Encyclopaedia Judaica (Germany)]

KIRSCHSTEIN, SALLI (1869–1935), German writer and art collector. Kirschstein, who was born in Kolmar, Poland, became a prominent merchant in Berlin. He was active in Jewish affairs and as director of the Juedischer Volksverein did much to help foreign Jews living in Germany during World War I. Kirschstein was an expert on Jewish art and wrote articles on the subject for many publications. His main work in this field was a study of Jewish engravers, Juedische Graphiker aus der Zeit von 1625–1825 (1918). He amassed an important collection of Jewish art and cult objects, the catalog of which appeared as Die Judaica Sammlung (1932). Most of his collection was bequeathed to the Hebrew Union College, Cincinnati. By collecting Judaica, Kirschstein wished to emphasize that Judaism had its own cultural traditions. Like his contemporaries Max Grunwald and Heinrich Frauberger, Kirschstein created a concept of presenting Jewish art as based on tradition and history. Add. Bibliography: J. Gutmann, “The Kirschstein Museum of Berlin,” in: Jewish Art, 16–17 (1991), 172–76; M. Osborn, “Eine Sammlung juedischer Kunstdenkmäler. Das Museum Kirschstein in Nikolassee bei Berlin,” in: Der Schild (March 15, 1926).

KIRSCHSTEIN, MORITZ (1826–1900), pedagogue, active in Reform Judaism. Born in Chodziez (Poznan), he received his talmudic education in Glogau and, under the guidance of Israel b. Gedaliah *Lipschuetz, in Danzig (Gdansk). After studying philosophy in Berlin, where he also studied under L. *Zunz, he taught religion at the Jewish community’s boys’ school, and from 1866 he was director of the first Jewish religious school in Berlin. He was a member of the commission that compiled the Reform prayer book for the Berlin community and was entrusted by Abraham *Geiger with editing the German text of the prayers. Kirschstein published Der Unterricht in der Religion und im Hebraeischen (1863), on teach-

KIRSHBLUM, MORDECAI (1910–1993), rabbi and Zionist leader. One of the most prominent leaders of religious Zionism in the United States during the 20th century, Kirshblum was born in Bialistok, Poland, and immigrated to America at the age of 13. He received his Orthodox rabbinic ordination in 1931 at the Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, which was a division of what later became the Yeshiva University. He accepted a pulpit at the Jewish Community House in 1944, one of the only institutions associated with the Jewish Center Movement in the United States that also housed a synagogue. He held this position for more than 20 years, serving the Bensonhurst Jewish community in Brooklyn, New York. Because of his extraordinary oratorical skills in English, Yiddish, and Hebrew, he addressed many other audiences throughout the city. When he became president of the Mizrachi Organization of America in 1952, he traveled throughout the country on its behalf, forging it into a powerful force within American Zionism, during the five years he held the office. As a member of the Jewish Agency Executive, to which he was appointed in 1956, he served as director of the Agency’s Torah Education and Culture Department and of the Aliyah Department of the American Section. In 1968, Kirshblum settled in Israel and became head of the Agency’s Aliyah and Absorption

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

189

Bibliography: Sendrey, Music, indexes; A. Friedmann, Dem Andenken Eduard Birnbaums, 1 (1922), 78; E. Zaludkowski, KulturTreger fun der Yidisher Liturgye (1930), 199; J. Hohenemser, in: Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference-Convention of the Cantors Assembly of America (1950), 11–15. [Joshua Leib Ne’eman]

kirshon, vladimir mikhailovich

Department in Jerusalem. His fervent advocacy of religious Zionism attracted many disciples who ultimately served the movement both in the United States and Israel. His brother I. Usher Kirshblum was for many years the rabbi of the Conservative Kew Gardens Hills Jewish Center. [Stanley M. Wagner (2nd ed.)]

KIRSHON, VLADIMIR MIKHAILOVICH (1902–1938), Soviet playwright. Kirshon was trained by the Communist Party as a lecturer and propagandist, and in 1925 became secretary of the Association of Proletarian Writers in Moscow. During the Stalinist purges he was expelled from the Communist Party 1937, arrested, and executed for “bureaucratic attitudes” and “Trotskyism”. His writings were banned until 1956, when he was “rehabilitated.” In 1962 the Soviet Union took official note of the 60t anniversary of his birth. Kirshon’s plays generally deal with contemporary Communist themes, and are strongly propagandist. His first play was “Red Dust,” about the degeneration of a revolutionary during the years of the New Economic Policy. Then came Konstantin Terekhin (1926), written in collaboration with A. Uspenski, that deals with the moral dissolution of a young Communist and the reaction of loyal Communist youth. Relsy gudyat (“The Rails Are Humming,” 1928) portrays the clash between a Soviet Communist factory administrator and the engineering experts of the old regime, still employed in Soviet industry. The play “Bread” (1930) dealt with the accumulation of private property in the kolkhozes. His last play, Bolshoy den (“The Great Day,” 1936) predicted the outbreak of war between the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany. Kirshon’s work has been translated into many languages. Bibliography: E.J. Brown, The Proletarian Episode in Russian Literature, 1928–1932 (1953), 229ff., 265; L. Tamashin, Vladimir Kirshon (Rus., 1965). [Yitzhak Maor]

KIRSTEIN, LINCOLN (1907–1996), U.S. impresario, arts patron, and dance historian. Born in Rochester, New York, he became interested in dance while at Harvard and soon emerged as one of the creative personalities in modern American ballet. He persuaded Russian-born choreographer George Balanchine, whom he met in London in 1933, to go to the United States, where the great master’s artistic vision would evolve in freedom for almost 50 years. In 1934, with Balanchine and Edward Warburg, Kirstein cofounded the American Ballet, which acted as the official ballet of the Metropolitan Opera from 1935 to 1938. In 1936 Kirstein founded Ballet Caravan to present American works. Among its productions was Eugene Loring’s Billy the Kid, for which Kirstein wrote the libretto. Ballet Caravan and the American Ballet merged and disbanded in 1941. Kirstein, after serving with the U.S. Army during World War II, formed a new company, Ballet Society. In 1948 this group, with Kirstein as general director and Balanchine as artistic director, was invited to become the resident company of the New York City Center of Music and Drama,

190

and changed its name to the New York City Ballet. Kirstein was also the sponsor of Japanese theater in the U.S., including Gagaku (dancers and musicians) and Kabuki (classic dramatic theatre). Kirstein did considerable research and was a leading dance historian. He founded and edited the scholarly periodical Dance Index (1942–48) and published books on Fokine (New York, 1935); Nijinsky (New York, 1974); and the New York City Ballet (New York, 1973). Among his awards are the Order of the Sacred Treasure (Japanese government, 1960); the Benjamin Franklin Medal of the Royal Society of the Arts (1981), and the National Medal of Arts (1985). Bibliography: IED, 4:26–30 [Marcia B. Siegel / Amnon Shiloah (2nd ed.)]

KIRSTEIN, LOUIS EDWARD (1867–1942), U.S. department store executive and public worker. Kirstein was born in Rochester, New York. Leaving home at 16, he spent seven years as a traveling salesman. In 1912 he joined Filenes, the Boston department store, as vice president, subsequently becoming a director of the other stores in the Federated Group. Kirstein did much to develop Filenes and to advance employee relationships. He played an important part in the public life of Boston, serving as president of the public library and chairman of the port authority. Within the Jewish community his most significant contribution was as president of the Federation of Jewish Charities, where he first assumed leadership in 1919, enlarging its activities and encouraging it to cope with the responsibilities of the depression period. He was also president of the Beth Israel Hospital and chairman of the General Committee of the American Jewish Committee. [Sefton D. Temkin]

KIRSZENBAUM, JESEKIEL DAVID (1900–1954), painter, draftsman, and etcher. His work is a synthesis of abstract and representational painting. Kirszenbaum was born in Staszow, Poland, and began his career by painting signs for the local tradesmen. At the age of 17 he went to Germany, where he studied for a short period at the Bauhaus in Weimar. Later he moved to Berlin where he worked for newspapers as an illustrator and cartoonist under the pseudonym Duvdevani. In 1933 he settled in Paris. His paintings of this period include biblical themes. During the German occupation he went into hiding; his studio was looted and his wife deported and murdered. After World War II he returned to Paris. His work is characterized by its nostalgic evocation of the past, particularly of the world of his childhood. This is especially true of his postwar paintings. On a journey to Brazil in 1948 he witnessed the carnival at Rio de Janeiro with its fantastic figures. His paintings of this subject, which evoke the Jewish festivities he had known as a child, express an element of East European mysticism. [Elisheva Cohen]

KIRSZENSTEINSZEWINSKA, IRENA (1946– ), Polish track and field athlete, winner of seven Olympic medals and ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kiryas joel

10 European Championship medals; member of the International Women’s Sports Hall of Fame. Kirszenstein-Szewinska was born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), Russia, but her parents soon moved the family back to their native Poland, for which Kirszenstein-Szewinska made her Olympic debut as an 18-year-old at the 1964 Tokyo Olympics. There she won a gold medal as a member of Poland’s world record-setting 4 × 100m. relay team (43.6) and silver medals in the long jump with a leap of 21ʹ 7¾ʹʹ, as well as the 200 m., with her mark of 23.1 setting the European event record. Four years later at the Mexico City Olympics, Kirszenstein-Szewinska won the 200 m. event in 22.5, breaking her own world record set three years earlier, and won a bronze medal in the 100 m. event (11.19). At the 1971 European Championships, Kirszenstein-Szewinska won a bronze medal in the 200 m. sprint, and then won the bronze in the same event the following year at the 1972 Olympics (22.74). In 1973, Kirszenstein-Szewinska switched to the 400 m. event, and the following year became the first woman to break 50 seconds at that distance. At the 1976 Olympics in Montreal two years later, she set a world record (49.29) in winning the 400 m. gold medal. Kirszenstein-Szewinska participated in the Moscow Olympics in 1980, but pulled a muscle in the semifinals of the 400 m. and was eliminated. Overall, Kirszenstein-Szewinska won three Olympic gold medals, two silver, and two bronze – tying the record for most medals won by a woman in Olympic athletic competition – and five gold, one silver and four bronze medals in the European Championships. Between 1973 and 1975 she won 38 consecutive 200 m. races, and between 1973 and 1978 she won 36 straight 400 m. races – both being the longest winning streaks in these events in history. Other highlights of her career include tying the 100 m. world record in 1965 (11.1); being the first woman to hold world records in the 100 m., 200 m., and 400 m. at the same time; lowering her own world record in the 200 m. (22.0) in 1974; and lowering her 400 m. world mark (49.0) at the World Championships in Duesseldorf in 1977. Kirszenstein-Szewinska was named Poland’s Athlete of the Year in 1965 as well as Outstanding Woman Athlete in the World by Tass, the official Soviet press agency. In 1966 she was named World Sport Magazine’s Sportswoman of the Year, and in 1974 United Press International’s (UPI) Sportswoman of the Year and Track & Field News Woman Athlete of the Year. She was elected to the International Women’s Sports Hall of Fame in 1992 and was named a member of the International Olympic Committee in 1998.

KIRYAS JOEL, an incorporated ḥ asidic village 60 miles (90 km.) northwest of New York City, just outside the village of Monroe. It was settled in 1974 on property purchased by Kahel Yatev Lev, a Brooklyn-based congregation, representing the Satmar ḥ asidic group. The village was the fulfillment of a long standing aspiration of the Satmar Rebbe, Rabbi Joel *Teitelbaum (1888–1979).

The rebbe, a Holocaust survivor, arrived in New York in 1947 and settled in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn. He was a prominent Orthodox leader in Hungary of the 1930s and gathered a large following of Ḥ asidic Jews throughout his first decades in America. He stressed ultra-Orthodox religious standards and showed fierce opposition to Zionism and the State of Israel. Teitelbaum often spoke of his desire to fulfill the Maimodean imperative (Yad, De’ot 6:8) to “forsake the cities of evil doers.” He further emphasized that he desired a settlement free of any Zionist influences. However, provided prospective villagers adhered to these standards, he did not seek to limit their ranks to his own followers. In addition, he wanted the village to be close enough to sources of livelihood. Despite the opposition of some influential Satmar communal leaders, who feared fragmentation of the group, the rebbe promised that he would divide his time between the proposed village and those Ḥ asidim remaining in Williamsburg. Over two decades beginning in the early 1960s, assorted plans to purchase properties in Staten Island, northern New Jersey, Congers, New York, and other sites came to naught. It was in the early 1970s, when the rebbe appointed Leibush Lefkowitz, the president of Congregation Yatev Lev and a wealthy businessman, to the task of seeing the project to fruition that matters moved towards a conclusion. In the fall of 1974 the first families settled in Kiryas Joel. Among Teitelbaum’s stated demands of the village’s residents was that women dress modestly, secular literature be avoided, and, in keeping with his anti-Zionist stance, no Hebrew be spoken. In 1977 the community’s large synagogue was opened. Eventually the village, which incorporated in 1977, would feature over 50 prayer groups in assorted synagogues. This was reflective of the village’s rapid growth and tolerance of differing orientations within ultra-Orthodoxy. The 2005 population was estimated at over 15,000. After the rebbe’s passing in 1979 and the succession of his nephew Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum (1915–2006), the community was plagued by a series of controversies. In the late 1980s a dissident group, who opposed the appointment of Moshe’s son Aaron to various rabbinic positions in Kiryas Joel, founded a rival congregation, Bnei Yoel. This group would eventually establish its own synagogues and educational network in the village. A further split took place in recent years with Moshe in ill health, as followers of Aaron and his brother, Zalmen Leib, battled for communal leadership. In struggles that have at times become violent and have also been played out in the courts, the two factions have largely established rival congregations, each claiming be the legitimate representative of the community. Their rival viewpoints are represented in competing Yiddish newspapers with Der Yid speaking for Zalmen Leib’s contingent and Der Blatt for Aaron’s. In the 1990s the village established a public school for its developmentally disabled children This move was challenged

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

191

[Elli Wohlgelernter (2nd ed.)]

kiryat anavim

in the courts as a violation of church-state separation and was still pending in 2006. Interestingly, right-wing dissidents, in Kiryas Joel and throughout the ultra-Orthodox world, also criticized the school, which they viewed as conforming to religiously prohibited standards of secularization. Bibliography: S.S. Teller, Divrei ha-Yamim (n.d.); M.A. Zabel, Ha-Kehillah be-Tifarto (n.d.); S.Y. Gelbman, Reẓ on Zaddik (1998).

KIRYAT ANAVIM (Heb. ‫“ ; ִק ְריַ ת ֲענָ ִבים‬Vineyard City”), kibbutz in the Judean Hills, 8 mi. (12 km.) W. of Jerusalem, affiliated with Iḥ ud ha-Kevuẓ ot ve-ha-Kibbutzim, founded in 1920 by Third Aliyah agricultural workers from Eastern Europe, who were later joined by immigrants from other countries. The initiative for founding a kibbutz at this spot came from Akiva *Ettinger, who wished to work out methods for modern hill farming, land reclamation, and afforestation. As the Zionist institutions had insufficient means to aid the settlers, who in the initial years suffered severe hardships, they proposed transferring the kibbutz to a better site in the Jezreel Valley, but the settlers insisted on staying on until their hill farm would become established. The development of deciduous fruit orchards, vineyards, and dairy cattle made Kiryat Anavim an important supplier to the population of Jerusalem. In the *Israeli War of Independence (1948), the kibbutz defended a highly endangered position and served as a base for Operations Naḥ shon and Makkabi – the first steps in opening the Jerusalem Corridor. In addition to field crops, the kibbutz operated factories manufacturing insulation and silicone products and ran a resort for which the woodland in the vicinity formed a suitable setting. Its population was 301 in 1968 and 314 in 2002. Website: www.kiryatanavim.homestead.com. [Efraim Orni]

KIRYAT ATA (Heb. ‫) ִק ְריַ ת ָא ָתא‬, town with municipal council status in northern Israel, 9 mi. (14 km.) N.E. of Haifa. It was founded in 1925 as a rural settlement. Abandoned after the 1929 Arab riots, it was renewed in 1934 when one of the country’s largest textile plants was erected there. In 1948, the town had 2,300 inhabitants and expanded quickly after the Israeli *War of Independence (1948), when the immigrant camp (ma’barah) Gilam was included in the municipal area and its inhabitants transferred to permanent dwellings. In 1967 Kiryat Ata received municipal status. The population steadily grew to 25,000 in 1969, 41,800 in the mid-1990s, and 48,800 in 2002. The municipal area is about 8 sq. mi. (20 sq. km.). Residents earn their living in local industry, commerce, and services or commute to work. The Ata textile plant closed down in 1985. The name Kiryat Ata, originally Kefar Ata, is based on the Arabic denomination of the site (Kufrattā), which in turn is assumed to have its origin in Aramaic. Remnants of buildings, mosaic floors, and tombs of the late Roman and early Muslim period have been found. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

192

KIRYAT BIALIK (Heb. ‫ ; ִק ְריַ ת ְ ּביַ אלִ יק‬named after Ḥ ayyim Naḥ man Bialik), urban community with municipal council status (since 1950) in northern Israel, in the Haifa Bay area, founded in 1934 as part of the residential zone north of the industrial Bay area. The first settlers, 160 families, originated from Germany. In the ensuing years they were joined by immigrants from European, African, and Asian countries. Kiryat Bialik had 900 inhabitants in 1944 and grew to 13,100 by 1969. In 1976 Kiryat Bialik received city status. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 35,300, and at the end of 2002 the population of Kiryat Bialik was 37,100 residents. Until the early 1950s, “Ahavah,” a Youth *Aliyah center for children with educational problems, was located at Kiryat Bialik. Initially a purely residential quarter with one- and twofamily houses with gardens, Kiryat Bialik’s municipal area was enlarged northward on the east side of the Haifa-Acre highway, multistory houses were built, public gardens planted, and a new industrial area developed in the northernmost part, including one of the country’s important textile factories. Today the city’s area consists of 7,200 dunams, with a large immigrant population, including Russians, Ethiopians, and Latin Americans. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KIRYAT EKRON (Heb. ‫) ִק ְריַ ת ֶע ְקרוֹ ן‬, semi-urban community, with municipal council status (since 1963), in the Coastal Plain of Israel, 2 mi. (3 km.) S.E. of Reḥ ovot. The town’s area is 0.8 sq. mi. (2.2 sq. km.). Immigrants from Bulgaria and Iraq were housed soon after the Israeli *War of Independence (1948) in the former Arab village of ʿAqir, abandoned in 1948. The site grew into a modern agglomeration which in 1969 had 4,100 inhabitants, some of whom worked in local plants (e.g., a cotton gin), in farm work, and various enterprises in Reḥ ovot and elsewhere. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 5,350, increasing to 9,600 in 2002, with four new neighborhoods created in the expanding community. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KIRYAT GAT (Heb. ‫) ִק ְריַ ת ַ ּגת‬, town with municipal status (from 1972) in the southern Coastal Plain of Israel. Kiryat Gat was founded in 1955 near the tell then held to be the site of Philistine *Gath. West of the present municipal area lay the village Fālūja, which was abandoned in 1948. It was destroyed after the “Ten Plagues” Operation in the *War of Independence, when Israeli forces laid siege to a large contingent of Egyptian forces there. Kiryat Gat, planned to serve as the urban center of the *Lachish Development Region, expanded quickly, rising from 4,400 inhabitants in 1958, to 17,000 in 1969. Of the adult population (1968), about 50 were immigrants from Mediterranean countries, mainly North Africa, 20 from Eastern Europe, mainly Romania, and 15 from Western Europe and North and South America, while the rest were Israeli-born or veteran Israelis. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 38,300, increasing to 48,200 in 2002, with a municipal area of around 4 sq. mi. (10 sq. km.). ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kiryat shemonah

The development of the town’s economy began with services rendered to the Lachish Region’s rural settlements and with industries based on farming produce, e.g., cotton ginneries. These were soon followed by large cotton and wool spinning and weaving plants, clothes factories, and a sugar factory. In the later 1960s other enterprises developed. The local labor demand made it necessary to attract additional population by stepping up apartment building. The industrial area, to the southwest of the town, was twice enlarged to make room for new enterprises, while the commercial region in the center was replanned and a municipal park laid out. At the end of the 1990s Intel Industries opened a microprocessor factory in Kiryat Gat. The plant employed 3,700 workers. Another 400 workers were employed in nearby factories servicing the Intel plant. Average income in the city was considerably below the national average. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KIRYAT Ḥ AROSHET (Heb. ‫) ִק ְריַ ת ֲחר ׁ ֶֹשת‬, village in northern Israel, between Mount Carmel and the Tivon Hills, founded in 1935 by workers from the Haifa industrial zone. It became the object of frequent attacks during the 1936–39 Arab riots and some of its first settlers were murdered. Although planned as an urban community, Kiryat Ḥ aroshet remained a small hamlet (with 217 inhabitants in 1969), as it was overshadowed by nearby *Kiryat Tivon and other centers. The name, literally translated as “City of Industry,” is in fact an allusion to biblical Harosheth-Goiim mentioned in the report of Deborah’s victory over the Canaanites (Judges 4) and assumed to have been located near this site. In 1979 Kiryat Ḥ aroshet was united with *Kiryat Tivon.

residential zone north of the Bay area allocated for industry. Its name commemorates Leo *Motzkin. The first settlers, the majority of whom came from Eastern Europe, lived in one- and two-family houses with gardens. Kiryat Motzkin’s layout was gradually superseded by large apartment houses as the population grew from a few hundred at the end of the 1930s to 3,700 in 1948, reaching 13,800 in 1969. In 1976 Kiryat Motzkin received city status; its area was expanded to 1.2 sq. mi. (3.1 sq. km.). In the mid1990s the population was approximately 33,400, increasing to 39,400 in 2002. Kiryat Motzkin is the commercial center of the “Kerayot” area. Website: www.kiriat-motzkin.muni.il. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KIRYAT ONO (Heb. ֹ‫) ִק ְריַ ת אוֹ נו‬, an urban settlement in central Israel, 5 mi. (8 km.) east of Tel Aviv. Founded in 1939 as a moshav by immigrants from European countries, Kiryat Ono (originally Kefar Ono) is named after the ancient site of *Ono, which is assumed to have been a few kilometers further south. The 40 founder families initially lived together with Arab Bedouins. The settlement, which numbered 377 inhabitants in 1948, expanded quickly when new immigrants, many of whom had entered the country on “illegal” ships, were housed in it. There were 6,530 inhabitants in 1951, 8,363 in 1961, and 14,200 in 1969. In 1992 Kiryat Ono received city status with an area of about 2 sq. mi. (5 sq. km.). In 2002 the population was 23,900. Kiryat Ono is principally a residential area on the border of the Tel Aviv conurbation, and economically dependent on the large city. [Shlomo Hasson / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

[Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KIRYAT MOTZKIN (Heb. ‫) ִק ְריַ ת מוֹ ְצ ִקין‬, urban community in the Haifa Bay area in Israel, founded in 1934 as part of the

KIRYAT SHEMONAH (Heb. ‫“ ; ִק ְריַ ת ׁ ְשמוֹ נָ ה‬City of Eight”), town in northern Israel, in the Ḥ uleh Valley, founded in 1950 when a local camp for new immigrants (*ma’barah) was transformed into a permanent residential area. In 1953 it received municipal council status and in 1974 it become a city, with an area of about 4 sq. mi. (10 sq. km.). The name Kiryat Shemonah commemorates Joseph *Trumpeldor and seven others who fell in 1920 in the defense of neighboring Tel Ḥ ai (*Kefar Giladi) against an attack led by notables of Khāliṣ a village, which stood until 1948 on the site of what would later become Kiryat Shemonah. The town grew from 3,300 inhabitants in 1954 to 6,000 in 1956 and 10,000 in 1959, although the lack of solid economic foundations caused a much larger turnover of population in that period. The population then reached 15,300 in 1969 and stabilized somewhat. The oldest part of the town, in the valley between the narrow basalt ridge (the “Snake Head”), had small houses with adjoining auxiliary farms. Later, the main part of the town developed with multistory houses on the mountain slope to the west. In the mid-1990s the population was approximately 19,000, and by the end of 2002 it had risen slightly to 21,600, of whom 18 were new immigrants; 30 of the city’s population was younger than 17. In 1969 local industry began to develop, e.g.,

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

193

KIRYAT MALAKHI (Heb. ‫) ִק ְריַ ת ַמלְ ָאכִ י‬, development town in southern Israel, 12 mi. (20 km.) N.E. of Ashkelon. Its name is the Hebrew for Los Angeles, whose Jews financed its first housing scheme. Kiryat Malakhi was founded in 1950 as a *ma’barah (immigrant transit camp). It gradually became a center based on the variegated produce of the quickly developing agricultural hinterland. In 1965 Kiryat Malakhi received municipal council status and in 1998 city status. Its area is around 2 sq. mi. (5 sq. km.). In 1968 it had 7,500 inhabitants, 50 of whom were from Asian and African countries, 35 were Israeli-born or veteran Israelis, and 15 from Eastern Europe. A large poultry slaughterhouse and packing plant, an ice-cream factory, and factories for textiles, cardboard, plastics, leatherwear, and metal were located in the town. In 2002 the population was 19,100, including about 3,000 Ethiopian Jews, with income about half the national average. Israel’s president, Moshe *Katzav, was a former mayor of the town. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

kiryat tivon

a spinning mill (the largest enterprise), a fruit-packing plant and other plants based on the region’s farming produce, and textile factories. Some of the enterprises were initiated by the Upper Galilee (i.e., Ḥ uleh Valley) Regional Council, which has its seat at Kiryat Shemonah. In the initial years most of Kiryat Shemonah’s workers were employed as hired farm laborers in the vicinity. This type of employment diminished in the 1960s, although the Ḥ uleh Valley settlements, including kibbutz factories, were still important sources of employment for Kiryat Shemonah inhabitants. The beginning of settlement of the *Golan after the *Six-Day War furthered the town’s development, though the city continued to suffer from severe economic problems, with income considerably below the national average. The city served as an urban center for the rural settlements around it. From 1968 Kiryat Shemonah became the object of repeated shelling from beyond the nearby Lebanese frontier. The escalation of attacks on the city at the end of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s led to the *Lebanon War. During these years the economic situation worsened and many residents left the city. The shelling – mainly by the Hizballah organization – continued after the end of the war, but to a lesser extent. Up to May 2000, when Israel withdrew its troops from Lebanon, the city was hit by 4,000 shells, causing 24 casualties and wrecking nearly 7,000 apartments and 250 cars. Since the withdrawal the Upper Galilee area, including Kiryat Shemonah, has enjoyed relative quiet. Bibliography: Levenberg, Pirkei Kiryat Shemonah (1964); E. Spiegel, New Towns in Israel (1966). Website: www.k-8.co.il. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KIRYAT TIVON (Heb. ‫) ִק ְריַ ת ִט ְבעוֹ ן‬, town with municipal council status (since 1958) in northern Israel, between the Jezreel and Zebulun valleys. A workers’ suburb, Kiryat Amal (“City of Toil”), was founded there during the Arab riots in 1937 and expanded after World War II. Its inhabitants were employed partly in Haifa and partly in auxiliary and fullfledged farms. In 1947, “Keret,” an investment company formed by British Zionists, established a second suburb, Tivon, north of Kiryat Amal, which after the Israeli *War of Independence (1948) became an important holiday resort. In 1957, Tivon, which had 4,850 inhabitants, and Kiryat Amal with about 4,000 merged into Kiryat Tivon together with El-Ro’i, a moshavah founded in 1935 by immigrants from Kurdistan. In 1969 it had a population of 9,700, rising to 13,300 in 2002, including the population of *Kiryat Ḥ aroshet, which merged with Kiryat Tivon in 1979. The municipal area is 3.5 sq. mi. (9 sq. km.).The foremost economic branch continued to be the recreation and tourist trade, but by the beginning of the 21st century, Kiryat Tivon was no longer a tourist center. The town’s residents mostly commuted to work in nearby Haifa, Jokneam, and Afulah. Large natural oak and pine forests are located in the vicinity, and the *Bet She’arim antiquities lie within Kiryat Tivon’s muncipal area. The home of shomer (guardsman)

194

Alexander *Zeid has been transformed into a youth hostel. Basmat Tabʿūn, a Bedouin housing project, adjoins Kiryat Tivon in the northwest. The Oranim academic college, with 5,500 students, founded by the kibbutzim movement, is located in the town. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KIRYAT YAM (Heb. ‫“ ; ִק ְריַ ת יָ ם‬City of the Sea”), urban community in northern Israel, in the Kerayot residential zone near the Haifa Bay shore. Kiryat Yam was founded in 1946, after beginnings in construction had already been made in 1939 but were interrupted with the outbreak of World War II. The settlement, with 650 inhabitants in 1948, expanded rapidly, reaching 16,000 in 1969 and 38,700 residents in 2002, with a municipal area of 2.7 sq. mi. (7 sq. km.). One- and two-family homes were gradually superseded by apartment houses. Inside the municipal area there was little industry, with most of the inhabitants employed in Haifa. Income was considerably below the national average. [Efraim Orni / Shaked Gilboa (2nd ed.)]

KIRZHNITZ, ABRAHAM (1888–?), Soviet bibliographer. Kirzhnitz, who was born in Bobruisk, was among the directors of the well-known Jewish library there, and published articles on the problem of founding Jewish popular libraries. A member of the *Bund until 1920, he, like most of the members of his party, then joined the Communist Party. He was the author of Di Yidishe Prese in der Gevezener Ruslendisher Imperye 1823–1916 (1930); Di Yidishe Prese in Ratnfarband 1917–1927 (1928), and Di Yidishe Prese in Vaysrusland (1925), pioneering works on the Jewish press in Eastern Europe. He edited the collection Der Yidisher Arbeter (4 vols., 1925–28), and a collection of documents (in Russian) on Jewish participation in the 1905 Revolution (1928). Containing valuable material on the history of the Jewish workers’ movement in Russia, these collections stress the central role of the Bund. Kirzhnitz disappeared at the end of the 1930s at the time of the great purges. Bibliography: Kh. Shmeruk, Pirsumim Yehudiyyim bi-Verit ha-Mo’aẓ ot, 1917–1960 (1961), index; M. Altshuler (ed.), Pirsumim Rusiyyim bi-Verit ha-Mo’aẓ ot al Yehudim ve-Yahadut, 1917–1967 (1970), index; Y. Slutsky (ed.), Sefer Bobruisk (1967), index; Rejzen, Leksikon, 3 (1929), 652–9. [Yehuda Slutsky]

KIŠ, DANILO (1935–1989), Yugoslav author and translator. Born in Subotica, Kis survived the Holocaust and after the war completed high school in Cetinje, Montenegro. He received his B.A. from the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Belgrade. He was a freelance writer, dramaturge in the Belgrade Atelier 212 Theater, and lecturer on Serbo-Croat at various French universities. Kis wrote short stories, novels, essays, dramas, and television screenplays, translated poetry from French and Hungarian. He published The Mansard, Psalm 44 (1962), but made his name with the meditative novel Garden, Ashes (1965 and 1978) in which the fascinating image of his ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kisch, alexander

Jewish father who was killed in Auschwitz in 1944 appears for the first time. He went on to publish Early Griefs (1968) and Hourglass (1969) for which he was awarded the 1972 Belgrade NIN magazine prize for the best novel in Yugoslavia. A master of style, modern in expression, and an outstanding talent, Kis was attacked for his anti-Stalinist book, A Tomb for Boris Davidovich (1976), by a group of Belgrade writers and journalists. His reply was the polemic treatise The Anatomy Lesson (1978). He lived in isolation in Paris, away from public life, but surrounded by friends. In Paris he wrote The Encyclopedia of the Dead (1983). In 1984 he was awarded the Ivo Andrić Prize in Belgrade and in 1989 received the Bruno Schulz Prize in New York. He was a member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and a Chevalier des arts et lettres (Paris, 1986). His works have been translated into English, French, German, Russian, Hungarian, Hebrew, and other languages. His mother was Montenegrine of the Orthodox faith. When he was five, his mother had him baptized in a Serbian Orthodox Church. His writings are deeply influenced by the Holocaust and his own family’s struggle for survival. Despite his use of dialect, his personal inclinations are decidedly cosmopolitan. He visited Israel and was impressed by it, but resented having apparently been described by someone as a non-Jew. In accordance with his will, he was buried ceremoniously in Saborna Crkva, the primary Serbian Orthodox Church of Belgrade. [Eugen Werber / Zvi Loker (2nd ed.)]

KISCH, prominent family in Prague. The name derived from the village of Chyse (Chiesch) in western Bohemia, from where the family came in the 17t century. For about 200 years it held the license for the only pharmacy in the Jewish quarter of Prague. One of its members was the physician ABRAHAM KISCH (1725–1803), the first Prague Jew to receive a doctorate in medicine (at Halle University in 1749). The founder of the Jewish hospital in Breslau (Wroclaw), he was head of the Prague community’s hospital. Abraham Kisch taught Latin to Moses *Mendelssohn and championed the admission of Jewish students to the universities. JOSEPH KISCH opened the first modern private school in the Jewish quarter. His son ENOCH HEINRICH (1841–1918), a physician, specialized in balneology and was active in the development of the Bohemian spas, especially Marienbad, where he also directed the Jewish hospice. His memoirs, Erlebtes und Erstrebtes (1914), are an important source for the history of Jewish Prague after the 1848 Revolution. When the Jews were expelled from Prague by Maria Theresa (1744), members of the family went to Holland and from there to England, where they founded other branches of the family (see *Kisch (British family)).

KISCH, family of British government officials descended from the *Kisch family of Prague. HERMANN MICHAEL KISCH (1850–1942) entered the Indian civil service in 1873 and rose to become a deputy secretary to the government of India, postmaster-general of Bengal, and director-general of the Indian post office and represented India at four international postal congresses. He returned to England in 1904 and was active in Jewish affairs. His letters, A Young Victorian in India, were edited by his daughter Ethel A. Waley Cohen and published in 1957. Both of Kisch’s sons followed their father into government service. Frederick Hermann *Kisch was a British delegate to the Versailles peace conference. His elder brother, SIR CECIL KISCH (1884–1961), joined the Indian civil service in 1909 and in 1917 went to India with Edwin *Montagu, the secretary of state for India, as his private secretary. In 1921 he became secretary of the Indian finance department and promoted numerous monetary reforms including the establishment of the Reserve Bank of India. Kisch represented India at the monetary conference at Geneva in 1933 and later served on the supervisory finance committee of the League of Nations. From 1933 to 1942 he was assistant under-secretary of state for India and from 1942 to 1943 deputy under-secretary. A man of wide-ranging interests, Kisch translated Russian poetry into English, published a standard work (with W.W.A. Elkin) on central banking, Central Banks – a Study of the Constitution of Banks of Issue (1928, 19324), and wrote The Portuguese Bank Note Case (1932), the story of a famous fraud of the 1920s. He was knighted in 1932. Another member of the family, DANIEL MONTAGU KISCH (1840–1898), English traveler, voyaged to Australia and from there went to Mauritius and South Africa, where he settled. He became manager of a Natal sugar estate and later joined an expedition to Matabeleland where he was chief adviser to King Lobengula. From 1874 Kisch lived in Pretoria and was auditor-general of the Transvaal during the British annexation from 1877 to 1881. He campaigned for civic equality for the Jews in Transvaal. [Joachim O. Ronall]

Bibliography: G. Kisch, Die Prager Universitaet und die Juden (1935, repr. 1969), 27ff., 128–38; R. Kestenberg-Gladstein, Neuere Geschichte der Juden in den boehmischen Laendern, 1 (1969), index; EJ, 10 (1934), 18–22, incl. bibl.; UJE, 6 (1942), 400–3, incl. bibl.; L. Fuks, in: Studia Rosenthaliana, 3 (1969), 193–201. [Meir Lamed]

KISCH, ALEXANDER (1848–1917), Austrian rabbi and scholar. Born in Prague, Kisch studied at the Breslau Jewish theological seminary, and at various universities. In Paris he became a tutor in Baron Horace *Guenzburg’s house. He served as rabbi in Bruex (Most), Bohemia (1874–77); in Zurich, Switzerland (1877–81); in Jungbunzlau (Mlada Beleslav), Bohemia (1881–86); and at the Meisels Synagogue in Prague (1886–1917). While serving in Zurich, Kisch founded and published (1878–80) the first Swiss-Jewish weekly, Neue Israelitische Zeitung. In 1899, Franz Joseph I awarded Kisch a gold medal for 25 years’ service as a military chaplain; at the audience, Kisch persuaded the monarch to strongly condemn antisemitism, which was then assuming alarming proportions after the *Hilsner trial for ritual murder. Kisch was the first and only rabbi in Austria to be appointed a government professor of religion (1900) and an inspector of religious education (1909). Among Kisch’s published works are: Papst Gregor

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

195

kisch, bruno zecharias

des Neunten Anklageartikel gegen den Talmud (1847), Hillel der Alte (1889), Das Testament Mardochai Meysels mitgetheilt und … beleuchtet: Festschrift zum 300-jaehrigen Jubilaeum der Meyselssynagogue (1893), Das mosaisch-talmudische Eherecht von R. Ezechiel Landau (1900), and Versuch einer neuen Erklaerung der in der Alkuinhandschrift Nr. 795 der Hofbibliothek Wien enthaltenen gotischen Fragmente (1902). Bruno *Kisch and Guido *Kisch were his sons. Bibliography: G. Kisch, Alexander Kisch 1848–1917 (Ger., 1934); G. Kisch (ed.), Breslau Seminary (1963), 423 (incl. bibl.) [Oskar K. Rabinowicz]

KISCH, BRUNO ZECHARIAS (1890–1966), medical authority and Jewish scholar. Kisch was born in Prague, the son of Alexander *Kisch and brother of Guido *Kisch. He was one of the founders of the Juedisches Lehrhaus in Cologne and taught experimental medicine, physiology, and biochemistry at the university there until 1936, when he was forced to leave Nazi Germany. During that time, he made particular studies on reflexes and discovered the law of irradiation of autonomic reflex, proving that each reflex in the field of autonomic nerves influences the tone of the entire autonomic nervous system. Subsequently, he taught at Yale and Yeshiva universities in the United States. Kisch combined interests in several fields. He published several books on the relationship of religion and science, including Naturwissenschaft und Weltanschauung (1931), Wege zum Glauben (1935), and Gottesglaube und Naturerkenntnis (1936). He was a well-known authority on medical science, his special fields being biochemistry, cardiology, and electron microscopy. He was a founder and president of the American College of Cardiology and contributed a great deal to the progress of medicine. He made significant contributions to the study of biochemistry and the study of enzymes and described the presence of procain-esterase in blood and tissues, and of the enzyme aminodehydrase in certain parts of the kidney. He also introduced a test for toxic goiter. Among his works on medicine is Electron Microscopy of the Cardiovascular System (1960). Kisch was also interested in Jewish numismatics, publishing “Shekel Medals and False Shekels” (in Historia Judaica, 3 (1941), 67–101) and Scales and Weights (1965). He wrote an autobiography, Wanderungen und Wandlungen (1966).

arrested and deported to Czechoslovakia. Refused admission to Australia as an “undesirable alien” in 1934, Kisch caused a sensation by throwing himself overboard in Perth harbor. He was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and was deported. Kisch fought in the Spanish Republican Army in 1937–38, emigrated to New York in 1939, and eventually settled in Mexico. He returned to Prague in 1946, and became honorary president of the Prague Jewish community. His books reflect the times in which he lived and his own tumultuous journeys through many different lands (including the U.S.S.R. and China) and cultures. Always an exponent of the ideals of the “good European,” he opposed all forms of nationalism. His most successful book was Der rasende Reporter (“The Rushing Reporter,” 1924). After the Communist coup d’etat of February 1948 Kisch was appointed by the authorities to the “Action Committee,” which supervised the activity of the Council of Jewish Religious Congregations in Bohemia and Moravia. His works include books about Prague and World War I, the anthology Klassischer Journalismus (1923), Hetzjagd durch die Zeit (1925), Zaren, Popen, Bolschewiken (1927), and Paradies Amerika (1930). He also wrote Prager Pitaval (1931), an account of Czech scandals, lawsuits, and the Prague underworld; books on Prague Jewish life, such as Geschichten aus sieben Ghettos (1934; Tales from Seven Ghettos, 1948); and the autobiographical Marktplatz der Sensationen (1945; originally published as Sensation Fair, 1941). Collections of Kisch’s writing appeared in Czech (3 vols., 1947–49) and in German (8 vols., from 1960). A last book appeared in Czech as Karel Marx v Karlových Varech (“Karl Marx in Karlsbad,” 1949). Bibliography: E. Utitz, Egon Erwin Kisch (Ger., 1956); D. Schlenstedt, Deutsche Reportage bei Egon Erwin Kisch (1959); Věstnik židovské náboženské obce v Praze, 10 (1948), 165–7; 11 (1949), 136–8, 164, 230, 304–5; 12 (1950), 149; D. Hamšík and A. Kusák, O zuřivém reportéru E.E. Kischovi (1962; includes bibliography). [Rudolf Kayser]

KISCH, EGON ERWIN (1885–1948), German author and journalist. He was born in Prague, where he was active in Czech-Jewish literary circles. Kisch joined the staff of the Berliner Tageblatt in 1913 and had an adventurous career as a leftist writer and politician. In 1918, Kisch led the Communist “Red Guard” in Vienna and a year later was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment and expelled from Austria. He returned to Berlin and, after the Reichstag Fire in 1933, was

KISCH, FREDERICK HERMANN (1888–1943), military engineer and Zionist leader. Born in Darjeeling, India, where his father, Hermann, was in the Indian Civil Service, Kisch finished in second place at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich, joined the Indian Army, and was posted to Baluchistan in World War I. He was wounded in France and again in Mesopotamia; the second wound prevented further active service. He was then appointed to the Directorate of Military Intelligence at the War Office in the section covering Russia, Persia, China, and Japan. He was a member of the British delegation at the Paris Peace Conference (1919–21), and headed the military intelligence section. Although he was a lieutenant colonel by that time, he nevertheless failed to obtain a nomination to the Staff College. He resigned from the army and in 1923 accepted *Weizmann’s invitation to become a member of the Zionist Executive in Jerusalem and head of its Political Department. Later he became chairman of the Jerusalem Executive, where his main task was to interpret the Jews to the Mandatory government and vice versa. Kisch’s problems were

196

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Bibliography: Reichert, in: American Journal of Cardiology, 18 (1966), 967; Proggendorf, Biographisch-Literarisches Handwoerterbuchs, 6 (1923–31), 1323; S.R. Kagan, Jewish Medicine (1952), 178. [Alexander Tobias / Suessmann Muntner]

kishinev

compounded by his inevitable English orientation, so that while he and the British understood but did not agree with one another, he and the Jews agreed but did not understand one another. Anxious to find common ground with the Arabs, he met King Hussein of Hejaz (1924 and 1931), the emir Abdullah of Transjordan in Amman (1924), and Egyptian leaders in Cairo. He left the *Jewish Agency Executive in 1931 and engaged in private business in Haifa, at the same time advising the yishuv on security matters. His experiences are recounted in his book, Palestine Diary (1938). On the outbreak of World War II he returned to active service in the British Army and was sent to Egypt, where by 1941 he was chief engineer, Eighth Army, with rank of brigadier. He was responsible throughout all North Africa for maintaining the water supply lines for military construction during the advances and demolition during the retreats, and for designing mine fields and devising anti-mine measures. Almost at the end of the fighting he was killed while inspecting a German mine field and was buried in Tunisia. He was decorated by the British and French governments. Kefar Kisch and the Kisch Memorial Forest in Lower Galilee are named after him. Bibliography: N. Bentwich and M. Kisch, Brigadier Frederick Kisch, Soldier and Zionist (1966). [Semah Cecil Hyman]

KISCH, GUIDO (1889–1986), historian of law and of the legal status of Jews. Kisch, the son of Alexander *Kisch, was born in Prague. He was educated in Prague and taught the theory and history of law at Leipzig, Koenigsberg, Halle, and Prague universities. Dismissed by the Nazis in 1933, for a time he taught Jewish history at the Breslau *Juedisch-Theologisches Seminar. In 1935 he immigrated to the United States and taught history at the Jewish Institute of Religion in New York. In 1949 he served as visiting professor at the University of Lund in Sweden. In 1953 he began to teach at the University of Basel, and settled in Switzerland in 1962. His main interest was the investigation of the legal position of the Jews as reflected in non-Jewish legal sources. Apart from many publications on medieval German law, Kisch wrote Juedische Aerzte im alten Prag (1934), Die Prager Universitaet und die Juden 1348–1848 (1935), Jewry-Law in Medieval Germany (1941), Sachsenspiegel and Bible (1941), In Search of Freedom, a History of American Jews from Czechoslovakia (1949), Jews in Medieval Germany (1949), Forschungen zur Rechts-und Sozialgeschichte der Juden in Deutschland waehrend des Mittelalters (1955), Recht und Gerechtigkeit in der Medaillenkunst (1955), Gestalten und Probleme aus Humanismus und Jurisprudenz (1969), An Innovator of Hagaddah Illustration – Cyril Kutlik (1971), Studies in Medallic History (1975), and his autobiography, Der Lebensweg eines Rechtshistorikers: Erinnerungen (1975). He also prepared a new edition of Pseudo-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (1949; cf. HJ, 12 (1950), 153ff.; and HUCA, 23 (1950/51), pt. 2, 81ff.). Kisch was the founder and editor of the periodical Historia ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

Judaica (1938–61), amalgamated in 1962 with the Revue des Etudes Juives; and continued as associate editor with the Revue. He edited the volume memorializing the Breslau seminary (1963). Bibliography: Jews of Czechoslovakia, 1 (1968), index; Festschrift Guido Kisch (1955); HJ, 23 (1961), 31, 159–63; G. Kisch (ed.), Das Breslauer Seminar (1963), 397–8; K. Froelich, in: Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fuer Rechtsgeschichte, 67 (1950), 450–9 (Ger. sec.); ibid., 68 (1951), 476–84.

KISH (Heb. ‫) ִק ׁיש‬, Benjaminite from Gibeah, father of King Saul. He is variously described as the son of Abiel (I Sam. 9:1), Jeiel (I Chron. 9:35), and Ner (I Chron. 8:33; 9:39). In I Chronicles 9:35 Jeiel is the keri for the ketiv Jeuel, the latter having the same vowel points as Abiel, indicating either Jeiel or Abiel. The correct reading is probably Abiel (cf. I Sam. 9:1). According to I Samuel 14:50–51, Ner is not the father of Kish but his brother, which agrees with I Chronicles 9:36 where Kish is mentioned before Ner, implying that Kish was the older brother of Ner. The Bible does not say very much about Kish, except that he was a man of wealth, possessing servants and asses (I Sam. 9:1–3). Saul is mentioned as “the son of Kish” in I Samuel 10:11, among other places. The sepulcher of Kish was at Zela, in the country of Benjamin (II Sam. 21:14), which was probably the landed property of his family. Both Saul and his son Jonathan were to be buried at this place (II Sam. 21:14). The Akkadian adjective qīšu, “given as a present,” “granted” (derived from the verb qâšu, “to deed,” “grant”) is attested in Akkadian personal names and provides a good etymology for the biblical name. Add. Bibliography: CAD K, 280; D. Edelman, in: ABD, 4:85–87.

KISHINEV (Rom. ChiŞinaˇ u), capital of Moldova, formerly within Bessarabia. A Jewish cemetery is known to have existed in a village near Kishinev during the 18t century. In 1774, a ḥ evra kaddisha was founded in the town with a membership of 144. When Kishinev became the capital of Bessarabia under Russian rule (1818) it developed rapidly, becoming a commercial and industrial center, and many Jews moved there from other places in Russia. The first rabbi of Kishinev was Zalman b. Mordecai Shargorodski. In 1816, R. *Ḥ ayyim b. Solomon Tyrer of Czernowitz laid the foundation stone of the Great Synagogue and in 1838, in the wake of the authorities’ efforts to hasten the assimilation of the Jews, the first Jewish secular school was opened. In time two other government schools were opened. The poet J. *Eichenbaum and the scholar J. *Goldenthal taught there. The *Haskalah movement won few adherents among the Jews of Kishinev. From 10,509 (12.2 of the total population) in 1847, the numbers of Jews in the city grew to 18,327 (21.8) in 1867 and 50,237 (46) in 1897. At the close of the 19t century most of the Jews were engaged in commerce, handicrafts, and industry. About 20,000 Jews were in miscellaneous occupations, in particular in the garment and timber industries and in the

197

kishinev

manufacture and trade of agricultural products, for which the region was noted. Jews owned many flour mills and plants for curing tobacco and drying fruit, and wine cellars. In 1898, 29 of the 38 factories of all kinds in Kishinev were owned by Jews. Large commercial houses and printing presses were also owned by Jews and employed thousands of Jewish workers. Because of the policy of the Russian authorities, who deliberately fostered antisemitism and passed legislation restricting the sources of livelihood open to Jews, Kishinev had a particularly large number of poor and destitute who were supported by various charitable institutions. In 1898, the separate welfare organizations amalgamated to form the Society in Aid of the Poor of Kishinev. Until World War I, the framework of Jewish life remained unchanged. Kishinev was the seat of the Bessarabian headquarters of several Jewish institutions, which included the *Jewish Colonization Association (ICA), the *American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (after World War I), and the American Joint Reconstruction Foundation. Judah Leib *Zirelson, the chief rabbi of Kishinev and Bessarabian Jewry (from 1909), founded a yeshivah here. There were also Jewish schools with instruction in Yiddish and Hebrew, and a *Tarbut school. In 1898 there were 16 Jewish schools in Kishinev with 2,100 pupils; 700 Jewish pupils attended general schools. Persecutions and Pogroms The name of Kishinev became known to the world at large as a result of two pogroms. The first, initiated and organized by the local and central authorities, took place during Easter on April 6–7, 1903. Agents of the Ministry of the Interior and high Russian officials of the Bessarabian administration were involved in its preparation, evidently with the backing of the minister of the interior, V. *Plehve. The pogrom was preceded by a poisonous anti-Jewish campaign led by P. *Krushevan, director of the Bessarabian newspaper Bessarabets, who incited the population through a constant stream of vicious articles. One of the authors of the most virulent articles was the local police chief, Levendall. In such a heated atmosphere any incident could have dire consequences, and when the body of a Christian child was found, and a young Christian woman patient committed suicide in the Jewish hospital, the mob became violent. A *blood libel, circulated by the Bessarabets, spread like wildfire. (It was later proved that the child was murdered by his relatives and that the suicide of the young woman was in no way connected with the Jews.) According to official statistics, 49 Jews lost their lives and more than 500 were injured, some of them seriously; 700 houses were looted and destroyed and 600 businesses and shops were looted. The material loss amounted to 2,500,000 gold rubles, and about 2,000 families were left homeless. Both Russians and Romanians joined in the riots. Russians were sent in from other towns and the students of the theological seminaries and the secondary schools and colleges played a leading role. The garrison of 5,000 soldiers stationed in the city, which could easily have held back the mob, took no action. Public outcry

198

throughout the world was aroused by the incident and protest meetings were organized in London, Paris, and New York. A letter of protest written in the United States was handed over to President Theodore Roosevelt to be delivered to the czar, who refused to accept it. Under the pressure of public opinion, some of the perpetrators of the pogrom were brought to justice but they received very lenient sentences. L.N. Tolstoy expressed his sympathy for the victims, condemning the czarist authorities as responsible for the pogrom. The Russian writer Vladimir *Korolenko described the pogrom in his story “House No. 13” as did Ḥ .N. Bialik in his poem “Be-Ir ha-Haregah” (“In the Town of Death”). On Oct. 19–20, 1905, riots broke out once more. They began as a protest demonstration by the “patriots” against the czar’s declaration of Aug. 19, 1905, and deteriorated into an attack on the Jewish quarter in which 19 Jews were killed, 56 were injured, and houses and shops were looted and destroyed: damages amounted to 300,000 rubles. On this occasion, some of the Jewish youth organized itself into *selfdefense units. The two pogroms had a profound effect on the Jews of Kishinev. Between 1902 and 1905 their numbers dropped from around 60,000 to 53,243, many immigrating to the United States and the Americas, while many more left after the second attack. The economic development of the town was brought to a standstill. 1914–1939 During World War I, when Russian units retreated from the Romanian front in 1917–18, they looted Jewish houses on their homeward journey. When the Romanian army entered the town soon afterward, it proved no less savage in its treatment of the Jews. Romanian rule, which lasted for 22 years (1918–40), made no improvement in the condition of the Jews, who were still harassed by official and unofficial antisemitism. However, their numbers increased through the arrival of waves of refugees from the pogroms in the Ukraine during the Russian Civil War. As in the past, the local agitators were led by students, especially from the theological seminary and the faculty of agriculture. The local press was once more in the fore in propagating antisemitism; most prominent were the official organ Romānia Nouā (“New Romania”), Cuvântul Moldovenesc (“The Moldavian Word”), and especially the Scutul Nātional (“The National Defender,” published from 1921) which declared from the start its aim of fighting “against the Jew-boys, the speculators, the parasites, and the corrupt.” There was also an antisemitic periodical, Gîndul Neamului. When the authorities deprived many of the Jews of Kishinev (and Bessarabia in general) of their citizenship in 1924, they lost their very means of livelihood. Hardly a year went by without demonstrations, riots, looting, and threats against the Jews. In these activities, members of the antisemitic organization “National and Christian Defense League,” headed by A.C. *Cuza, played a leading role; they organized frequent “parades” with the intention of terrorizing the Jews and fomenting riots against them. In addition, the authorities took

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 12

kishinev

official measures, such as the closure of Jewish institutions, schools, newspapers, and cultural organizations. Many Jewish youth left for Ereẓ Israel or America. In 1938 the Jews were further hit by the antisemitic laws of the Cuza government, and more of th